Draft Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Environmental Assessment
for the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
Integrated Resource Management Plan
January 26, 2010
Available for Public Review and Comment from
February ____, 2010 to March ____, 2010.
Contact information: Yvette Tuell, Environmental Program

ytuell@sbtribes.com;
221-2995 (cell) or 239-4552 (office)
SBT Fish & Wildlife Department
Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes
of the Fort Hall
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP Winter 2010
Reservation
Fort
Hall, Idaho
ii
Resolution for Development of EA for TIRMP
Resolution No. ENVR-06-1455, 12/27/06
WHEREAS, the Fort Hall Business Council has the ultimate responsibility for budget
approvals and overseeing the administration of all Tribal funds awarded to the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes through contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, regardless of
source; and
WHEREAS, the Fort Hall Indian Reservation was established as a home in perpetuity for
the members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes; and
WHEREAS, conflicting laws and jurisdictions govern the use, disposition, and overall
wise management of natural and cultural resources on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation;
and
WHEREAS, the Tribes have identified a need to develop an overall balanced strategic
level management plan that will ensure protection of the Tribal values and traditions, and
the natural and cultural resources on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, yet utilizing our
resources for economic benefits; and
WHEREAS, the Tribes have received funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office
of Trust Services, to develop a Tribal Integrated Resource Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Tribes have been planning for the Comprehensive Plan for the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation for several years with a Draft Review plan now available; and
WHEREAS, in the best interests of the Tribes to provide comprehensive, holistic and
integrated planning for the management for the resources on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF THE

SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES, that approval is hereby given to begin the planning
process for the development of an Environmental Assessment for the Tribal Integrated
Resource Management Plan, which shall provide strategic guidance for managing all
aspects of our natural resources and uses of those resources within the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) shall consist
of:
Environmental Program Director Land Use Director

Water Resource Director Fish & Wildlife Director
Planning Director Range Program Manager
ARM Program Director Cultural Resource Coordinator
Executive Director Housing Director
Health Director Emergency Management Response Director
i
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Team Lead shall be Yvette Tuell, Environmental

Program Manager, Fisheries Department, who shall be responsible for reporting to the
Fort Hall Business Council on a quarterly basis; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all Tribal departments and programs shall be

mandated to work cooperatively with the ID Team and provide input in the planning
process.
Authority of the foregoing resolution if sound in the Indian Reorganization Act of June
18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984) as amended and under Article VI, Section 1 (a, g, r) and the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Constitution and Bylaws of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Dated this 27th Day of December 2006.
Alonzo A. Coby, Chairman

Fort Hall Business Council
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing resolution was passed while a quorum of the
Business Council was present by a vote of 6 in favor, and 1 not voting (AC) on the date
this bears.
Aldene J. Pevo, Tribal Secretary

Fort Hall Business Council
ii
Reviewed and Recommended for Approval by:
________________________________________ ____________
Chairman, Land Use Policy Commission Date
________________________________________ ____________
Chairman, Tribal Water Commission Date
________________________________________ ____________
Chairman, Fort Hall Business Council Date
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
________________________________________ ____________
Superintendent, Fort Hall Agency Date
Bureau of Indian Affairs
iii
Executive Summary
This programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) presents an analysis of impacts that could
result from implementing the Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) on the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation. Four alternatives are presented: the No Action Alternative which continues
planning and implementation of projects with limited to no integrated resource management
considerations; the Proposed Action Alternative which integrates interdisciplinary resource
planning into all projects in order to balance development with natural resource sustainability
and cultural resource protection; the Growth Alternative which encourages integrated resource
management planning while promoting economic growth and development opportunities on the
Reservation; and the Restoration Alternative which encourages integrated resource management
planning while clearly establishing growth and development boundaries, restricting certain types
of land uses, and restoring a number of areas on the Reservation to native plant communities and
wildlife use. The purpose of the IRMP is to provide overall interdisciplinary planning guidance
to the Tribes and Tribal departments so that the Tribe’s natural and cultural resources are
managed in an integrated and sustainable way across programs to meet the goals and objectives
of current and future generations of Tribal members and resource managers. The resources of
primary concern are those that are found in the natural environment (air, water, earth, plants, and
animals) or that require special protection (cultural resources).
iv
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action ........................................................ 1
1.1. Planning ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Relationship to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Comprehensive Plan .............................. 2
1.3. Tiering .............................................................................................................................. 4
1.4. Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................. 6
1.5. Relevant Laws/Treaties/Governance................................................................................ 6
1.6. Decisions to be Made ....................................................................................................... 7
1.7. Trust Responsibility ......................................................................................................... 7
1.8. Issue Identification ........................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2 – Alternatives ....................................................................................... 10
2.1. Alternative Development ............................................................................................... 10
2.2 Resource Specific Goals Common to all Alternatives ................................................... 11
2.2.1. Physical Resources (Air, Soils, Water) ................................................................... 11
2.2.2. Biological Resources (Vegetation, Wildlife and Fisheries).................................... 11
2.2.3. Cultural, Social, and Economic Resources and Values .......................................... 12
2.3. Alternative A – No Action Alternative .......................................................................... 12
2.4. Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative ................................................................ 12
2.5. Alternative C – Growth Alternative ............................................................................... 14
2.6. Alternative D – Restoration Alternative......................................................................... 16
2.7. Implementation, Monitoring and Amendment Process.................................................. 17
2.8. Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 17
Chapter 3 – Existing Environment....................................................................... 20
3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 20
3.2. General Setting/Landscape ............................................................................................. 20
3.3. History ............................................................................................................................ 21
3.4. Government/Tribal Management ................................................................................... 24
3.5. Demographics/Socioeconomics ..................................................................................... 25
3.6. Land Use Policy ............................................................................................................. 26
3.7. Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 27
3.7.1. Irrigated Farming and Dryland Farming ................................................................. 27
3.7.2. Rangeland ............................................................................................................... 29
3.7.3. Fort Hall Bottoms ................................................................................................... 32
3.7.4. Commercial Areas .................................................................................................. 35
3.7.5. Rural/Residential Development .............................................................................. 36
3.7.6. Open Space (Parks, Recreation and Open Space) .................................................. 36
3.7.7. Mining Areas .......................................................................................................... 36
3.8. Physical Resources ......................................................................................................... 36
3.8.1. Air ........................................................................................................................... 36
3.8.2. Soils......................................................................................................................... 41
3.8.3. Water ....................................................................................................................... 47
3.9. Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 53
3.9.1. Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 53
3.9.2. Wildlife and Fisheries ............................................................................................. 59
v
3.9.3. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 72

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences ......................................................... 77
4.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 77
4.2. Physical Resources ......................................................................................................... 77
4.2.1. Air ........................................................................................................................... 77
4.2.2. Soils......................................................................................................................... 78
4.2.3. Water ....................................................................................................................... 80
4.3. Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 82
4.3.1. Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 82
4.3.2. Wildlife and Fisheries ............................................................................................. 84
4.4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 86
4.5 Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................... 87
4.5.1 Definition of Cumulative Effects ............................................................................ 87
4.5.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis ................................................................... 88
4.5.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ............................................... 88
Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination ....................................................... 89
5.1. Planning Process / Schedule / Meetings ......................................................................... 89
5.2. Public Involvement ........................................................................................................ 89
5.3. Interdisciplinary Team Members (Preparers) ................................................................ 90
References ............................................................................................................... 91
APPENDIX A – Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances Relevant to the
Shoshone Bannock Tribes ........................................................................... 94
APPENDIX B – Wildlife and Culturally Significant Plant Species on the Fort
Hall Indian Reservation .............................................................................. 99
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Levels of Planning. ...........................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Project Location................................................................................................................5
Figure 3. Schematic showing how planning, projects, and other issues directly impact
resources. ..........................................................................................................................9
Figure 4. Land Use and Zoning under the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives. ...........13
Figure 5. Land Use and Zoning under the Growth Alternative. ....................................................15
Figure 6. Land Use and Zoning under the Restoration Alternative. ..............................................16
Figure 7. Location of the Fort Hall Bottoms within the Reservation. ...........................................33
Figure 8. Non-Attainment Area Boundaries. .................................................................................39
Figure 9. Emission Inventory Trends for the Industrial Source Category. ....................................40
Figure 10. Distribution of Woodland Vegetation Types on the Reservation. ...............................54
Figure 11. Big Game Habitat on the Reservation. .........................................................................64
Figure 12. Elk Population Numbers on the Reservation................................................................65
Figure 13. Deer Population Numbers on the Reservation. ............................................................65
Figure 14. Moose Population Numbers on the Reservation. .........................................................66
Figure 15. Antelope Population Numbers on the Reservation. .....................................................66
Figure 16. Intermittent and Perennial Streams on the Reservation. ..............................................68
Figure 17. Rate of Trout Caught per Hour by Non-Members. ......................................................70
Figure 18. Shoshone and Bannock names for Major Areas on the Fort Hall Reservation …..... 73
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives. ........................................................................................... 18
Table 2. Range Units on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. .......................................................... 30
Table 3. Special Status Plant Species and Their Potential to Occur on the Reservation. ............. 59
Table 4. Genetic Inventory Sampling of Fish on Fort Hall Indian Reservation. .......................... 72
vii
Acronyms
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ARM Agricultural Resource Management
AUM Animal Unit Monthly
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
BIAM Bureau of Indian Affairs Manual
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CWA Clean Water Act
DM Departmental Manual
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FSA Farm Services Agency
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
ID Team Interdisciplinary Team
IHS Indian Health Service
IRMP Integrated Resource Management Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
RMP Range Management Plan
SBT Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
USC United States Code
USDA United States Department of Agricultural
USDI United States Department of Interior
viii
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to analyze and disclose the potential
environmental impacts of implementing the proposed Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ Integrated
Resource Management Plan (IRMP). This EA represents a programmatic analysis that contains
Reservation-wide descriptions of existing resources and provides a broad environmental impact
analysis. This EA focuses on the relevant environmental resource issues and concerns identified
by Tribal members and Tribal departments during public involvement activities. It discloses the
direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from implementing the
alternatives as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC
4321-4347) and Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508).
The IRMP will assist the Tribes in meeting its goal to assert its sovereignty and will provide
guidance for implementation of the Tribes commitment to natural resource management that
reflects the traditional and cultural land use patterns of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The
IRMP will be developed to promote the long-term sustainability of a healthy environment and a
prosperous society. More importantly, the IRMP will demonstrate the Tribes commitment to
good natural resource planning and in doing so exercise the Tribes sovereignty.
1.1. Planning
Three general levels of planning typically occur on the Reservation. Strategic plans or
comprehensive plans provide the overarching level of planning that creates the foundation for
program and project plans and often state the overall long-range vision or mission of the Tribe or
organization. Department-level programmatic or implementation plans tier to strategic plans and
outline specific goals and objectives for an individual program’s activities. Project-level or
activity specific plans tier to department plans and define in a detailed manner specific actions to
be undertaken. An example of how these three levels of planning relate to each other is shown in
Figure 1.
The IRMP is a strategic-level plan that, as its primary goal, provides guidance in planning for the
integrated and interdisciplinary management of the Tribe’s natural, environmental and cultural
resources in order to meet the Tribes’ established goals and objectives for those resources. As
such, the resources of primary concern are those that are found in the natural environment –
including physical (air, soil, water) and biological (plants and animals) resources – and important
cultural, social and economic values that may be impacted by implementation of program or
project-level activities.
1
Figure 1. Levels of Planning.
STRATEGIC PLAN Integrated Resource Management Plan
Forest Water Grazing

PROGRAM OR Management Management Management
DEPARTMENT PLAN Plan Plan Plan
PROJECT OR Project or Project or Project or

ACTIVITY PLAN Activity Activity Activity
The proposed approach to achieving the overall goal of the IRMP is to develop an integrated
style of management whereby planning and implementation of all projects and development of
resource-specific or departmental goals is accomplished through deliberate interdisciplinary
efforts in order to balance development and project implementation with natural resource
sustainability and cultural resource protection. As such, the traditional compartmentalization of
programs is discouraged and a multiple resource, integrated culture of management is
encouraged. This approach reduces potential conflicts between departments in achieving
resource goals and objectives and provides a unifying document that land managers can use to
become synchronized with each other, thereby reducing the potential for land use conflicts.
Because the IRMP is a strategic-level plan that is based on the Tribes’ common vision for its
resources, it serves as a route map which assists managers in moving towards common targets
and intentionally deals with potential resource conflicts before they occur.
This EA has been prepared to inform decision makers and the public of the impacts of the
alternatives. The intent is to develop an IRMP for the Tribes, utilizing federal funding from the
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The EA will be made available
for public review and comments, and then the Final EA will be presented to the Fort Hall
Business Council. The Fort Hall Business Council will choose a preferred alternative. That
preferred alternative will evolve into the Final Tribal Integrated Resource Management Plan.
1.2. Relationship to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Comprehensive Plan

The Tribes’ first formal strategic planning effort resulted in the 1976 Comprehensive Plan, also
known as the “Peterson Plan.” Through guidance provided in that plan, the Tribes have created
businesses, developed and irrigated thousands of acres of agricultural land, secured water rights,
and taken control over development on the Reservation. Many of the goals and projects
identified in the 1976 Plan have been accomplished.
In 1998, a Core Planning Team was formed to develop a new strategic plan for sustainable
growth, social and economic development, and financial independence of the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes. The planning process began in 2001 with a series of community “scoping” meetings and
2
resulted in the issuance of a draft Comprehensive Plan in 2005. The draft Plan provides vision
statements regarding the Tribes’ sovereignty, identity, and governance, and it identifies
overarching goals for environmental resources, social programs and economic opportunities. It
is anticipated that the Comprehensive Plan will represent a compilation of program or
department plans that describe the goals and specific projects of individual departments. The
Comprehensive Plan does not, however, analyze the impacts of planned management actions or
projects on Tribal resources, does not integrate across issues or resources to achieve common
goals, and is not a NEPA-compliant document.
The draft Comprehensive Plan does not by itself analyze the impacts of planned management
actions or projects on Tribal resources. Instead, guided by Tribal goals and objectives, it
institutionalizes a strategic approach to land and resource management. One of the key elements
in this strategy is the development and implementation of the IRMP. The draft Comprehensive
Plan adopts strategies and methods for evaluating environmental and resource conditions in the
planning process, and compiles a natural resource data base in atlas form. The draft
Comprehensive Plan advocates the continued development of the Tribes' environmental data
base for use in evaluating systemic and cumulative impacts on plants and animals, natural
resources, land, air and water quality. This general approach is to underlie and inform the
planning of any specific actions taken that impact Tribal land and resources.
In the Natural Resources Management framework chapter of the draft Comprehensive Plan, the
statement is made that as a general principal “The Tribes believe that resource management
planning should be based on a nuanced understanding of the natural environment, and
particularly the interconnected nature of natural systems. Range resources, for instance, cannot
be managed without considering water resources, fish and wildlife, fire ecology, and soil erosion.
Tribal resource management programs will use a variety of assessment and analysis tools,
including land capability (or suitability) analysis as a tool in evaluating land and resources, and
in making resource management decisions and will evaluate management decisions for their
effects throughout the Reservation’s ecosystem.”
The IRMP will adopt the goals and the integrative, data-driven approach of the Comprehensive
Plan. Because of its focus on commitments of federal and trust resources, the IRMP will be
prescriptive in response to federal environmental law. Whereas the draft Comprehensive Plan
uses “best available” published data in evaluating plans and actions, the IRMP may require new
scientific studies to identify the impacts of specific actions on natural systems, and may require
the use of dynamic modeling of impacts rather than the static analysis of suitability and land
capability methods. During the development of this Draft EA, the zoning maps used approved
by the Fort Hall Business Council and the final version of those zoning maps will be printed in
the Final EA.
Recognizing the need for a unified approach to natural resource planning and management under
the draft Comprehensive Plan, the Fort Hall Business Council, the governing body for the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, determined that a strategic-level planning document was needed to
provide interdisciplinary planning guidance for all department-level or project-specific plans that
had the potential to impact the natural or cultural resources on the Reservation. In late 2006 a
Resolution (ENVR-06-1455) was approved by the Fort Hall Business Council to begin the
planning process for the development of this EA and subsequent IRMP. The IRMP is intended
to be a strategic, vision-based, long-range management plan that guides management of Tribal
resources.
3
IRMPs are action-forcing documents that trigger compliance with NEPA requirements. Both the
IRMP and this EA describe a course of action, describe the existing environment, and predict the
outcome of actions being proposed. The IRMP is not intended to replace the Comprehensive
Plan but rather to be a companion document through which the activities and projects identified
in the Comprehensive Plan can be carried out in a way that meets the Tribes’ common vision for
its resources.
1.3. Tiering
The scope of the IRMP (and this EA) is limited to the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, which
encompasses approximately 546,000 total acres in southeastern Idaho (Figure 2). This EA
includes a broad analysis of the impacts of implementing the IRMP to which subsequent
departmental actions or specific projects can be tiered. In general, tiering works from broad
NEPA analysis documents to more site-specific ones:
When a broad analysis has been prepared and a subsequent analysis is then prepared
on an action included within the entire program or policy (particularly a site-specific
action), it need only summarize issues discussed in the broad statement and
concentrate on issues specific to the subsequent action (40 CFR 1502.20).
Thus, subsequent EAs prepared to analyze project-specific actions would tier from, or
incorporate by reference, sections of this programmatic EA. Tiering to this EA would allow the
Tribes to develop project-specific analyses that are consistent with the interdisciplinary resource
goals and objectives of the IRMP and to concentrate on the issues specific to the proposed
project.
4
Figure 2. Project Location.
5
1.4. Purpose and Need

The Fort Hall Indian Reservation contains a rich assembly of natural, environmental, and cultural
resources that serve the social, economic and environmental needs of the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes. The purpose of the IRMP is to provide overall interdisciplinary planning guidance to
Tribal departments so that the Tribe’s natural and cultural resources are managed in an integrated
and sustainable way across departments to meet the goals and objectives of current and future
generations of Tribal members and resource managers. The need for this action is apparent as
integrated planning mechanisms currently are not in place and many management decisions that
have the potential to impact natural and cultural resources are made independently at the
department or project level.
1.5. Relevant Laws/Treaties/Governance

The Fort Hall Indian Reservation was originally established by Executive Order on June 14,
1867. On July 3, 1868 the Fort Bridger Treaty affirmed the Reservation as a “permanent home”
for the Shoshone and Bannock peoples for their “absolute and undeterred use and occupation.”
In addition to affirming the Fort Hall Indian Reservation as the permanent homeland for the
Shoshone and Bannock people, the Treaty reserved rights including hunting, fishing, and
gathering and services such as education and health care. Article IV of the Fort Bridger Treaty
reserves the right to Tribal members to hunt and fish on “unoccupied lands of the United States.”
Therefore, the Tribes’ interest in protecting, preserving, and enhancing fish and game resources
extends far beyond Reservation boundaries.
One of the most basic powers of a sovereign people is the power to select their form of
government. Pursuant to the 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty and the Indian Reorganization Act of
1934, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ Constitution and Bylaws govern on and off Reservation
treaty rights. The Constitution and Bylaws established the Tribe’s governing body – the Fort
Hall Business Council – which acts as the Enterprise Board and oversees economic development
on the Reservation.
Protection of the environment has always been important to the Tribes. In order to provide for
sound natural resource management programs, the Fort Hall Business Council, the Land Use
Commission, and the Tribal Water Commission make policy decisions to manage the natural
resources on the Reservation. Department specialists provide professional and technical support
on land use, water, and other environmental quality issues on the Reservation.
The IRMP will reflect the Tribes’ intent to comply with a suite of federal laws governing
resource management and protection, most notably laws associated with environmental
documentation, management of wildlife including endangered species, air and water quality, and
cultural resource protection. The U.S. Department of Interior (USDI) Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) is the federal agency responsible for this EA. Therefore, in addition to complying with
NEPA, this EA also complies with BIA regulations (516 Departmental Manual 10) and follows
the BIA policy regarding protection and enhancement of environmental quality (BIA NEPA
Handbook, 30 Bureau of Indian Affairs Manual Supplement 1).
Federal trust responsibilities also require the federal government to uphold rights reserved by or
granted to Indian tribes and Indian individuals by treaties, federal statutes, and executive orders.
Two main laws specifically mention tribal IRMPs – the Indian Forest Resource Management Act
6
and the Indian Agriculture Management Act – and emphasize that Tribes must abide by laws,
including NEPA. The action alternatives described in this EA have been designed to comply
with all legislative requirements. A summary of other applicable legislation is provided in
Appendix A.
1.6. Decisions to be Made

Once the Alternatives are developed, it will go out for public review and comment, and then
presented to the Fort Hall Business Council. After consideration of public comments, the Fort
Hall Business Council shall be presented the final EA and they shall choose a preferred
alternative or a combination of alternative components from the EA. The Final EA and the
Resolution shall be forwarded to the BIA.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs Fort Hall Agency Superintendent will approve the selected
alternative, or a combination of alternative components from the EA. The Integrated Resource
Management Plan will be developed as a standalone document.
1.7. Trust Responsibility

The United States government has a permanent legal obligation (trust responsibility) to exercise
statutory and other legal authorities to protect tribal and allotted lands, assets, resources and
treaty rights. Accordingly, the BIA is mandated by federal law to manage Indian lands held in
trust for the benefit of the Indian owners. The BIA is committed to the policy of sustained-yield
management and to providing management plans as stated in 25CFR163; the Department of
Interior Manual; and 53 BIA Manual. The BIA is also committed to a policy of Indian self-
determination as required under law, and has a duty to consult and coordinate land and resource
activities on tribal and allotted lands with the Tribes. Although the Tribes have contracted to
administer several programs from the BIA, under the 93-638 process, the BIA ultimately retains
trust responsibility over these trust lands.
1.8. Issue Identification

The IRMP is intended to be a strategic, vision-based, long-range management plan based on the
Tribes’ interests, needs, and concerns for their natural and cultural resources. As such, this EA
focuses on the decision framework for management activities or projects that have the potential
to impact the resources that are found in the natural environment (air, water, earth, plants, and
animals) or that require special protection (cultural resources).
Several issues of concern were brought forward in a number of planning meetings including
social, economic, and infrastructure concerns. Many of these issues – and the management
activities or projects needed to address them – are outside of the scope of this EA because they
are not resources per se but rather are programmatic topics or issues that have the potential to
affect resources. These issues include housing; education; fire management and protection;
health and social services; transportation; emergency services; capital facilities development; and
specific infrastructure projects such as developing water treatment facilities. These types of
issues are important and have the potential to impact resources; however, these types of issues
will be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and not in the IRMP or this EA. For example, the
Comprehensive Plan contains a section addressing Tribal housing. The Comprehensive Plan
would describe the need for housing, where housing construction is proposed, and what codes
7
and regulations would need to be adhered to in their construction. Because management

decisions on housing will affect a tract of land, it will to a certain degree impact physical (e.g.,
soil, water) and biological (e.g., vegetation, wildlife habitat) resources on that tract of land. It is
the interdisciplinary management of the impact on those resources that is the concern of this EA,
regardless of whether the tract of land is used for housing, wildlife habitat, agriculture, range, or
any other use.
This EA is concerned with resources that exist in the natural environment, that are valuable and
necessary for sustaining life, and that play a role in maintaining and developing the Tribe’s
economic and social base. More importantly, these resources have the potential to be impacted
by department-level planning (or issues such as those discussed above) and project-specific
activities and thus require coordinated and interdisciplinary efforts to protect, preserve, and
enhance them (Figure 3). The resources addressed in this EA include:
 Land Use, including Agricultural Land and Rangeland
 Air Quality
 Soils
 Water Resources
 Fish and Wildlife
 Special Status Species
 Vegetation, including Wetlands and Riparian Areas
 Cultural Resources
8
Figure 3. Schematic showing how planning, projects, and other issues directly impact resources.
Planning
Education Projects
Infrastructure Transportation
RESOURCES
Energy Development Air, Water, Earth, Plants, Emergency Services
Animals, Cultural
Range/Grazing Housing
Fishing/Hunting Mineral Extraction

Agriculture
9
Chapter 2 – Alternatives
This chapter presents alternatives that describe varying approaches to management of resources
and land uses on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Three IRMP alternatives and the “no action”
alternative are described in this chapter presenting a range of choices for achieving the purpose
and need identified in Chapter 1. Shoshone-Bannock Tribal goals and resource specific
objectives are also presented.
2.1. Alternative Development

Alternatives were developed and refined over the duration of this project by the ID Team and by
input from Tribal members and departments. Alternatives were developed through scoping
(during the Comprehensive Plan process and EA development), issue identification, and
assessment of current management practices and desired goals for lands, culture, and resources
of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Through the comprehensive planning process, several
general Tribal goals were identified; those relevant to the IRMP and this EA are listed below.
Shoshone-Bannock Tribal DRAFT Goals

Our Sovereignty and Continued Existence as a People
Protect, reclaim and advance Shoshone-Bannock Tribal sovereignty and control over lands and
resources within the outer confines of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, other Tribal lands, and the
unoccupied lands of the United States pursuant to the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868.
Our Lands and Mother Earth
Recognize and fulfill our obligation to future generations of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in the
management of our natural resources by pursuing, promoting and where necessary, initiating efforts
to restore the Snake River system and affected unoccupied lands to a natural condition. This
includes the restoration of component resources to conditions which most closely represent the
ecological features associated with a natural riverine ecosystem. In addition, the Tribes will work to
ensure the protection, preservation, and where appropriate-the enhancement of rights reserved by
the Tribes under the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 and any inherent aboriginal rights.
What Makes us Indians
To protect, preserve, enhance and restore Shoshone and Bannock language, cultural traditions and
way of life.
Our Treaty Rights
To preserve and ensure for existing and future generations of Tribal members the opportunity to
exercise treaty rights.
Our Livelihood and Economic Development
Create, promote and maintain opportunities for productive, satisfying employment for the members
of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes desiring work on and off the Reservation, recognizing that sound
economic development builds communities and creates an environment in which positive, self-
sustaining economic activity can take place.
The overall objective of the alternatives described in this EA is to support efforts to attain an
integrated level of planning through specific decision-making and management actions.
Alternatives that were carried forward for analysis had to meet the following criteria:
10
 Support achievement of Tribal goals

 Meet the purpose and need
 Protect, preserve, and enhance the Tribes’ natural and cultural resources
 Be consistent with federal, regional, and Tribal laws, statutes, treaties, and regulations.
Four alternatives were carried forward for analysis:

 Alternative A – No Action Alternative
 Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative
 Alternative C – Growth Alternative
 Alternative D – Restoration Alternative
These alternatives provide a range of choices for achieving the criteria listed above. Formulation
of these alternatives involved identifying combinations of management practices to resolve
planning issues and to provide guidance where direction for a resource or use is needed. Each
alternative could represent a complete and reasonable interdisciplinary land use plan to achieve
the purpose and need and guide future management of the lands, resources, and uses on the Fort
Hall Indian Reservation. Each action alternative was developed to support attainment of the
general strategic goals and to achieve the resource specific goals and objectives identified below.
2.2 Resource Specific Goals Common to all Alternatives

During the preparation of this EA broad, overarching goals were developed for protecting,
preserving, and enhancing the environmental resources and values on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation. Reservation-wide strategic, department-level, and project-specific planning and
implementation would require integration across departments to ensure that these resource-
specific goals are achieved. The level of protection, preservation, or enhancement that would be
required for each resource would be defined through interdisciplinary planning that balances
development and project implementation with natural resource sustainability and cultural
resource protection.
2.2.1. Physical Resources (Air, Soils, Water)
 Protect, preserve, and enhance the quality of the airshed for the ecological health of the
Reservation and its residents.
 Protect, preserve, and enhance air, soil, water, biological, and cultural resources through
responsible land use practices (e.g., mining, grazing, agriculture).
 Minimize loss of natural soil and geologic properties.
 Protect, preserve, and enhance the quality of rivers, streams, lakes and other Reservation
water bodies.
 Provide safe and sufficient water sources for domestic, agriculture, range, wildlife and
other consumptive use.
2.2.2. Biological Resources (Vegetation, Wildlife and Fisheries)
 Protect, preserve, and enhance vegetation to provide for wildlife habitat and sustainable
use of vegetation resources (e.g., livestock grazing, forest products)
 Protect, preserve, and enhance riparian areas and wetlands.
11
 Protect, preserve, and enhance fisheries habitat and natural fish populations.
 Protect, preserve, and enhance wildlife habitat and wildlife populations.
2.2.3. Cultural, Social, and Economic Resources and Values
 Perpetuate the Shoshone and Bannock languages, cultures, traditions, and ways of life.
 Protect, preserve, and enhance historic and pre-contact cultural properties.
 Provide sustainable opportunities for harvest (fish, wildlife, vegetation) and traditional
cultural practices.
 Create, promote and maintain economic opportunities that benefit members of the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.
2.3. Alternative A – No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative retains the current management practices on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation and thus provides a baseline for comparison to the other alternatives. Under this
alternative, planning and implementation of projects identified in the Comprehensive Plan and
current and future department-level plans would occur with little to no integrated,
interdisciplinary management considerations. Tribal departments would largely continue to
work independently to plan and implement their programs and projects with little consideration
of how their activities might impact the ability of other resource managers to attain their goals.
Current land use and zoning would remain in effect on the Reservation unless specific projects
necessitated changes (Figure 4). Impacts to natural and cultural resources would generally be
realized at the project implementation stage instead of the planning stage, and thus protection of
or mitigation for impacts to the resource would be reactive in nature.
2.4. Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative

The Proposed Action Alternative would integrate interdisciplinary resource planning into all
resource plans and projects in order to balance development with natural resource sustainability
and cultural resource protection. Under this alternative, specific projects identified in the draft
Comprehensive Plan or other department or program plans would be implemented utilizing a
methodology that examines resource issues through an interdisciplinary coordination process
prior to project implementation. This early planning process – essentially the IRMP – would
serve to identity potential conflicts and address them in a proactive manner.
Like the No Action Alternative, current land use and zoning would remain in effect on the
Reservation unless specific projects required changes (Figure 4). The Proposed Action would
balance resource sustainability and ecosystem health with the production of commodities and use
of the land through integrated planning. This alternative recognizes that although the Tribes
value and need sustainable economic development, they would balance growth with other needs
and interests as well. This type of development would select businesses and activities that have a
positive effect on the community and its environment, and that would maintain the harmony and
balance of nature. The alternative recognizes that the typical, project-by-project approach to
economic development is inappropriate for the setting and situation at Fort Hall and that sound
economic development can build communities and create an environment in which positive, self-
sustaining economic activity can take place.
12
Under this alternative, the Tribes would encourage and support regional and sustainable
economic development activity. The draft Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide for
development and designates land suitable for the various proposed projects. Projects in the draft
Comprehensive Plan vary from improvements of existing facilities to completely new facilities
and design. Using the management philosophy proposed under this alternative, specific actions
identified in the Comprehensive Plan or other program plans would be carried out within the
existing footprint, by resolving issues and making improvements in the use of existing sites and
developed areas, rather than starting over at new locations. New development would occur but
areas of open space would also be protected.
Figure 4. Land Use and Zoning under the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives.
13
Under this alternative, high weight would be given to economic development proposals with
non-detrimental environmental impacts. Projects with a neutral or positive environmental impact
would be preferred and the economic benefits of polluting industry would be discounted.
Environmental concerns, whether raised by the Tribe’s Environmental Program staff or by Tribal
members, would be addressed in a proactive manner.
Areas identified for economic development include I-15 Exit 80 area, the Pocatello Airport and
former FMC/Astaris site, I-15 Exit 89 area (South Blackfoot Exit), Rainbow Beach, and Fort
Hall sites (U.S. Highway 91 – Fort Hall Enterprise Development). Development opportunities in
these locations would create employment and income as well as improve the Tribes’ relations
with surrounding communities. In addition to designating these sites for commercial and
industrial activity, the Tribes would work to ensure that adequate infrastructure and utilities were
available at these sites, including roads and communication infrastructure.
A similar philosophy would be followed for other land uses besides economic development. For
example, the draft Comprehensive Plan includes specific proposals for housing. Under this
alternative, actions selected for implementation would be managed following the new integrated
management approach. Development would occur in the footprint area designated in the draft
Comprehensive Plan as available for housing construction; that is, lands within one-quarter mile
of domestic water lines. Because much of this area is currently in agricultural use a further
refinement of the areas to be developed for housing would need to occur. In addition, housing
projects would need to take into consideration such factors as soils, water resources,
infrastructure, etc. In determining siting locations, effects to transportation, infrastructure, public
safety, soils, water resources, wildlife, and other resources would be analyzed.
Use of range land provides another example in which this management philosophy would serve
to protect the Tribes’ resources for the long term. Currently, in some range units inadequate
range management practices have resulted in damage to riparian areas on perennial and
ephemeral streams. Degradation of riparian areas has contributed to water quality issues, such as
increased stream bank erosion and sedimentation leading to increased summer water
temperatures; decreases in available trout spawning areas and egg hatching success; changes in
macro invertebrate communities; and reduction in stream primary production. In other range
units the productivity and general healthiness of the range is good, but additional coordination
with other Tribal resource departments is necessary to improve management strategies to meet
the goals of all resource managers. Additional concerns are the current drought conditions, high
wildland fire danger, adequate water availability, noxious and invasive weeds, and cultural
resources. Under this alternative, decisions related to range land use would be made in an
interdisciplinary manner to ensure that effects to all resources are considered.
2.5. Alternative C – Growth Alternative

The Growth Alternative encourages integrated resource management planning while promoting
economic growth and development opportunities on the Reservation. This alternative would
employ the same integrated management process as the Proposed Action Alternative but the
degree of development would be greater and could occur outside of the existing zoning
footprints. For purposes of analysis, increased economic development under this alternative is
anticipated in existing developed areas and along the interstate corridors, especially around the I-
15 Exit 80 and Exit 89 areas, the Pocatello Airport area, and around Fort Hall (Figure 5).
14
Changes in land use and zoning would result with more land being converted from irrigated
farming and grazing to industrial and urban commercial uses.
Figure 5. Land Use and Zoning under the Growth Alternative.
This alternative promotes growth and development throughout the Reservation where it is not in
conflict with natural or cultural resources or with land use suitability. Resource uses such as
livestock grazing, agricultural production, and mining would also be emphasized. Efforts to
involve more Tribal members in ownership of rangeland resources, agricultural operations, and
other resource uses would occur, in addition to increasing non-member/non-Indian use. This
alternative would also emphasize management of natural resources for the production of natural
15
resource commodities (e.g., timber) and public use opportunities, and thus resource development
would be less constrained than under Alternatives A or B.
2.6. Alternative D – Restoration Alternative

This alternative would emphasize natural resource conservation by reducing the areas open to
future development. Strong growth and development boundaries would be established and
adhered to with economic development and urban commercial and industrial growth being
limited to the areas on the Reservation already impacted by such activities. This alternative
would also change existing zoning by reducing areas available for livestock grazing and
agriculture use (e.g., dryland farming) and would return some lands to native range/uses
(Figure 6)
Figure 6. Land Use and Zoning under the Restoration Alternative.
16
Some specific actions proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan would be implemented under
this alternative and include the elimination of areas designated for “Mineral Mining” from the
proposed land use/zoning map, and the imposition of strong environmental safeguards on any
proposed development. Other restoration activities and projects would be tied to this alternative
and would include a reduction in areas devoted to irrigated agriculture (e.g. Buckskin Basin area)
and restoration of sagebrush shrubland in some areas; restoration to a natural state of most
dryland farmed areas; closure and repair of most backcountry roads; restricting use of the Ferry
Butte area to protect the cultural resources present in that area; restoration to proper functioning
condition of all riparian areas on the Reservation; changes in range management (especially in
the Bottoms area); increased allocation of forage to wildlife; and restoration of the former Gay
Mine site to open space (Figure 6).
This alternative would promote native range/uses and would be most protective of the natural
and cultural resources on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Areas such as the Bottoms which are
heavily used for livestock grazing would have substantial areas set aside for wildland use. Land
designated as wildland on the Reservation is to be “preserved in its natural state as habitat for
wildlife” and land and natural resources in these areas are only to be used for hunting and
fishing, unless specifically permitted by the Land Use Commission. Under this alternative, the
Land Use Commission, in coordination with departmental resource managers (e.g., fish and
wildlife, water resources, range), would develop a plan of use for the Bottoms area that would set
aside substantial areas for wildland use and the remaining areas would be managed for
agricultural use in such a way as to promote natural resource conservation and enhance fish and
wildlife populations and riparian habitat in the area.
2.7. Implementation, Monitoring and Amendment Process

Once a decision has been made by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and the BIA on which
alternative in this EA is selected, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be issued or
the decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement will be made. Once the FONSI is
issued the NEPA process will be concluded and the Tribes will begin writing the IRMP, based
upon the decision. An implementation and monitoring plan will be contained in the IRMP that
describes how the decision will be implemented, monitored, and amended.
2.8. Comparison of Alternatives

The table below compares at a programmatic level the effects of implementing the four
alternatives discussed in this EA. A further discussion on potential impacts to resources under
each of the alternatives is provided in Chapter 4.
17
Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives.

Parameter / No Action Proposed Action Growth Restoration
Resource Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
Achieve goals at Common achievement Common Common achievement
the department/ of goals across achievement of goals of goals across
Vision resource level departments and across departments departments and
resources and resources resources
Single resource Integrated resource Integrated resource Integrated resource
Management management management approach management management approach
approach approach
Planning Compartmentalized Interdisciplinary Interdisciplinary Interdisciplinary
environment
Single individual or Consensus approach to Consensus approach Consensus approach
small group at the approval and to approval and to approval and
Decision making program or acceptance acceptance acceptance
department level
Development Encouraged Encouraged but in Promoted for both Promoted for natural
balance with natural industrial and natural resource commodities
resource sustainability resource commodities and restoration
and cultural resource
protection
Public role Public excluded Public included Public included Public included
Resource Reactive Proactive Proactive Proactive
protection
Land Use Increased Decreased Decreased Decreased
Conflicts
Air Quality May improve, May improve or May improve or May improve or
remain unchanged, remain unchanged remain unchanged remain unchanged
or worsen
Cultural May be damaged Protected Protected Protected
Resources
Fish and Wildlife Populations and Populations and Populations managed Populations and
habitat may remain habitat improved for sustainable use; habitats improved;
unchanged or be through habitat may be habitat may be
negatively interdisciplinary reduced increased
impacted planning
Special Status May be harmed or Protected Protected Protected
Species destroyed
Soils Soil loss may Protected Protected but may Protected and restored
remain unchanged have more converted in many disturbed
or increase to development areas
Vegetation, May remain May be improved or May be improved, May be improved in
including unchanged or be remain unchanged remain unchanged, or many areas and
Wetlands and negatively reduced in extent converted from
Riparian Areas impacted agricultural use to
native plant
communities and
wildlife use in some
areas
18
Parameter / No Action Proposed Action Growth Restoration

Resource Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
Water Resources May remain May improve or May improve or May improve
unchanged or be remain unchanged remain unchanged
negatively
impacted
Approximate Land Use (acres)a

Zone No Action Proposed Action Growth Restoration
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
Irrigated Farming 90,000 90,000 88,500f 80,000i
Dryland Farming 34,900b 34,900 34,900 30,000j
Grazing 306,900c 306,900 303,900f 270,000k
Mining Areas 4,700d 4,700 4,700 0l
Open Space 104,000e 104,000 104,000 160,050
Industrial 3,500 3,500 6,500f,g 3,500
Urban Commercial 2,000 2,000 3,500f,h 2,000
Total 546,000 546,000 546,000 546,000
a
These acreages are presented for analysis purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the exact acreages available in each zone.
For instance, some lands zoned as open space are used for livestock grazing and thus are included in the acreage for grazing.
These acreages present a reflection of the types and amounts of changes in land use that could be expected under each
alternative and thus are used as the basis of comparison of effects presented in Chapter 4 of this EA.
b
Approximately 110,000 acres of drylands occur on the Reservation and include dryland cropland, croplands that have entered
into the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP lands), and sagebrush steppe shrubland more properly classified as open space.
c
Grazing defined here includes the 14 specified range units on the Reservation that are permitted and managed for livestock
grazing. This includes the Bottoms area as well as a number of acres that are zoned as open space.
d
Mining lands are composed nearly entirely of the Gay Mine, an open-pit phosphate mine developed and used by the J.R.
Simplot company from 1944 to 1992.
e
Open space includes some land that is currently grazed by livestock, woodlands, and wildlands that are preserved as habitat for
wildlife. The acreages reported here for open space are somewhat lower than actual zoned acres since significant open space
lands are used by the range program for livestock grazing.
f
Industrial and urban commercial expansion would mostly come at the expense of lands that are currently used as irrigated
farmlands and grazing lands.
g
Industrial expansion would nearly double under this alternative and would be expected to occur mostly around the Pocatello
Airport and the two I-15 exits (80 and 89).
h
Urban commercial expansion would largely be expected to occur around the Fort Hall area and east of the Pocatello Airport.
i
Most of the decrease in irrigated farming is associated with a reversion of the Buckskin Basin area to dryland farming and/or
open space.
j
Dryland farming is expected to decrease overall on the Reservation as more lands are put into the CRP program and other lands
are restored to native sagebrush shrubland vegetation.
k
Livestock grazing would be substantially reduced under this alternative with much of the reduction coming from a cessation of
grazing on much of the Bottoms area. Other areas would also be fenced from livestock use to restore riparian habitat and
increase wildlife habitat availability.
l
The former Gay Mine area would be rehabilitated under this alternative and would be rezoned as open space.
19
Chapter 3 – Existing Environment

3.1. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the existing or affected environment, including
conditions and trends that could be affected by the alternatives described in Chapter 2. This
chapter focuses on those portions of the environment that are directly related to the conditions
and resource categories being addressed by the alternatives. The description is not meant to be a
complete portrait of the study area, but rather is intended to portray the conditions and trends of
most concern to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and the public and agencies involved in the
management of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation at the broad scale.
Survival of human kind and the environment is mutually dependent

The Shoshone and Bannock people’s relationship with the physical environment is interactive and is
described as one of stewardship. According to tribal perspective, all animate and inanimate beings –
human, animal, plant, and mineral – live together on this earth and are mutually dependent on each
other. All things in nature have a voice and a place in creation and it is the responsibility of tribal
members to maintain the balance that is present in the environment.
Following a general description of the Reservation landscape, a History section is included

below to provide a sense of the land use patterns that shed light on issues surrounding off-
Reservation customary use rights, as well as understanding issues like sovereignty, jurisdiction,
and treaty rights. Sections on Government/Tribal Management and Demographics/
Socioeconomics are also included. The next main section of the chapter addresses the Land Use
Policy and Land Use on the Reservation, which includes Irrigated and Dryland Farming,
Rangeland, the Fort Hall Bottoms area, Commercial areas, Rural/Residential areas, Open Space
(Parks, Recreation and Open Space), and Mining areas. The next section of the chapter
addresses Physical Resources (with subsections on Air, Soils, and Water), followed by a
description of the Natural Resources (with subsections on Vegetation and Wildlife and
Fisheries), and a final section describing Cultural Resources.
3.2. General Setting/Landscape

The Fort Hall Indian Reservation, homeland of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, is located in the
southeastern part of the State of Idaho. The ancestral lands of the Shoshone and Bannock people
is known as “Bia sogope” and includes lands in the States of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah,
Oregon, Washington, Nevada, California, south to the Plains and north into Canada. An 1867
Executive Order proclaimed 1.8 million acres for the Reservation; however in 1872, a survey
error substantially reduced the original Reservation to 1.2 million acres.
The current Reservation occupies approximately 850 square miles (~544,000 acres) of land in
parts of Bingham, Bannock, Power, and Caribou counties, Idaho. The Reservation is adjacent to
Interstate 86 and Interstate 15 and the cities of Pocatello and Blackfoot are located on the
southern and northern boundaries of the Reservation, respectively. The current Reservation
boundaries have resulted from a series of cessations of the original boundaries (see Figure 2).
Ceded lands outside the current Reservation boundary include the communities of Lava Hot
Springs, McCammon, Inkom, and Pocatello.
20
Southeastern Idaho’s semi-arid climate is characterized by cold, dry winters; cool, wet springs;
and hot, dry summers. Annual average precipitation on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation is
approximately 11 inches at the lower elevations (period 1948 to 2005). May is generally the
wettest month (1.51 inches) and July the driest month (0.55 inches). Summer precipitation is
often in the form of intense, localized afternoon thunderstorms. Average total snowfall is 22.7
inches with more occurring at the higher elevations (WRCC 2007).
The Reservation is situated at the northern end of the Great Basin and straddles the eastern
border of the Snake River Plain. Topography is characteristic of basin and range physiography.
The terrain on the Reservation varies between 4,400 feet (above mean sea level) in the flat
northwestern portion, to 8,000 feet in the steep mountains to the east and south. Major mountain
ranges within the boundary of the Reservation include the Portneuf, Deep Creek, and Pocatello
Ranges. The Portneuf Range, neighboring Pocatello, and the more distant Deep Creek Range
rise sharply from the surrounding plains and agricultural lands. The highest point on the
Reservation is South Putnam at an elevation of 8,549 feet and the lowest point of the Reservation
is approximately 4,380 feet at the Rainbow Beach boat ramp. Mountain slopes generally range
from 30 to 70 percent with forest communities occupying the cooler and moister north and east
exposures at higher elevations. The mountain peaks and surrounding forested lands on the
Reservation have both cultural and religious significance to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.
Warmer, drier exposures are non-forested consisting of a mix of grassland, sagebrush/
rabbitbrush, mountain shrub fields, talus, and rock. The dry foothills and ridges support a mix of
bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, juniper, sagebrush, and other shrubs and forbs (Elliott and
Sawyer 2002).
Perennial and intermittent streams dissect the Portneuf and Pocatello Ranges. Alluvial processes
have created distinctive floodplains composed of deep, alluvial soils in valley bottoms. The
broad Snake River Plain winds in a southwesterly direction from the City of Blackfoot to the
American Falls Reservoir. The Snake River’s braided channels form the Fort Hall Bottoms,
which are comprised of riparian shrub and cottonwood communities, agricultural lands, and
wetlands.
Fee lands within the Reservation boundary have been purchased through a land acquisition
program. As a result, the Fort Hall Indian Reservation is now comprised of 97 percent
Tribal/trust and individual Tribal member lands; only 3 percent of the lands are held by non-
Indians. The land status is 41,343 acres are trust lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
215,558 acres are Tribal lands and 266,505 are allotted lands. Tribal Lands are managed under
the authority of the Land Use Commission and Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Reservation is divided into five districts – Gibson, Ross Fork, Bannock Creek, Lincoln
Creek, and Fort Hall – each of which has a community center or a lodge for gatherings. The
Town of Fort Hall is a small, unincorporated site located adjacent to the Fort Hall campus. The
Tribal office is on the Fort Hall campus east of the Town site. The Fort Hall Indian Reservation
agency campus is comprised of buildings that house Tribal operations and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
3.3. History
The ancestors of the Shoshone and Bannock people now living on the Reservation ranged over
great areas of what is now the inland northwestern United States and Canada, east into the Great
21
Plains, and south and west into the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. Tribal members are
descendants from bands that were formerly based in the upper Snake River and Portneuf Valleys,
the Lemhi-Salmon River Valleys, Boise and Payette River Valleys.
Archeological evidence shows that the entire Great Basin and Columbia Plateau supported
established populations of hunter-gatherers. Typically, bands would form to take advantage of
the various resource opportunities found in different areas, moving with the seasons. The bands
of Shoshone and Bannock people named themselves after the principle food resources like the
mountain-dwelling “Tuka dika” (sheep-eaters), “Agai dika” (salmon-eaters), “kutshundika”
(buffalo-eaters) and “Yambadika” (root-eaters), and other bands. The various groups seem to
have worked out of established camps they revisited year after year. Tribal oral history reiterates
that ancestors of the Shoshone and Bannock peoples would base themselves in the Portneuf,
Boise, Bruneau, Blackfoot, Lemhi, Weiser and Snake River Valley areas, wintering there and
using it as a base for the remainder of the year while moving around a home range of hundreds
or thousands of square miles with the season (Halliday and Chehak 1996).
The groups interacted with each other, through trading, intermarrying, and maintaining
widespread family ties by extended visits. The Shoshone and Bannock languages are spoken
throughout their aboriginal area and consequently there are many dialects of Shoshoni language.
Nevertheless, all speakers of the Shoshoni language understand one another creating a sense of
community or nationhood that persists among the Shoshonean-speaking tribes and groups.
In the early 1700s, the Shoshone and Bannock ways of life were intensified by the presence of
horses. Groups could travel farther, carry more weight and hunt more large game. Horses made
it convenient to trade with plains, southwest, and coastal Indian tribes. Salmon fishing groups
were able to trade for buffalo robes, elk and deer skins, while others traded buffalo meat or
horses. Tribal oral history and early written accounts indicate Shoshone and Bannock peoples
were widely known, numerous, powerful and well-off.
The Fort Hall “Bottoms” area, including the adjacent benchlands, was a prime wintering ground
for many Shoshone and Bannock bands. The Fort Hall Bottoms is a significant resource and
cultural area and its use continues to this day by tribal members for hunting, gathering and
spiritual needs. Other groups wintered along the Portneuf River at what is now Pocatello and
Marsh Valley. There were a number of hot springs along the Portneuf and Bear Rivers that were
considered open ground, where members of any band or group came for extended periods to
pray, bathe, and relax (Madsen 1985). Today, descendants of the Lemhi, Boise Valley, Bruneau,
Weiser and other bands of Shoshoni and Bannock reside on the Reservation and return to their
aboriginal areas to visit and to exercise their treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather on aboriginal
lands.
Traditional harvesting methods are used to hunt fish, including spears, weirs, baskets and nets,
with community and extended family groups moving to the waters where the salmon were
running. The area around Salmon, Idaho was used by the northwestern band of Shoshone and
the Shoshone and Bannock people gathered in numbers along the Snake River and its tributaries
during salmon runs. People today still fish where they have always fished, unless access is an
issue or original sites have been flooded out. However, the salmon runs have gone extinct in the
upper Snake River drainage. Big game hunting consisted of buffalo, elk, moose, and antelope,
which were used for food, clothing and shelter (Parry 1976). Tribal members still hunt in areas
that were hunted in former times.
22
Traditional subsistence use of natural resources persists to this day, particularly of fish and
wildlife, but also of a wide variety of plants. Traditional hunting and gathering activities are not
limited to the Reservation but extend throughout much of the aboriginal territory of the Shoshone
and Bannock peoples. Plants and other resources were gathered and harvested where they were
found (D’Azevedo 1986). The Shoshone and Bannock peoples would regularly visit the Camas
Prairie area near present day Fairfield, Idaho, in late spring or early summer, then move on to
fishing territories on the Snake River below Shoshone Falls.
Major north-south and east-west trade routes intersected in the areas where the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation is now located, and were part of the reason the area was so attractive to the
Shoshone and Bannock people. The trade routes and the ability to trade for food, horses, and
furs laid the country open to Euro-American explorers and invaders. Lewis and Clark followed
these routes, guided by a Shoshone woman. Later the Oregon Trail followed a major east-west
route through the territory of the Shoshonean-speaking tribes, leading to long and bitter conflict.
In 1863 the federal government sought out Shoshone and Bannock people with the intent of
placing them on reserved lands in efforts to open up lands for non-Indian homesteading. In 1867
President Johnson, through a Presidential Executive Order, established the 1.8 million acre Fort
Hall Indian Reservation for the Shoshone and Bannock peoples. In return for peace, land, and
rights of safe passage through Indian territories, Tribes received annuities, education, and a
physician. The Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 confirmed the arrangement, but a survey error
reduced the Reservation to 1.2 million acres in 1872. The Bannock Wars of 1878 were a final
attempt by independent Native hunters to fight for their traditional existence. The Reservation’s
name – Fort Hall – comes from a trading post that was built on the Tribe’s wintering grounds
located in the Bottoms in the early 1800s. Nine emigrant trails, including the Oregon Trail,
passed through Fort Hall. The railroads followed the same old trails laid down by Native
Americans, with east-west and north-south rail lines intersecting within the 1868 Reservation
boundaries. The railroad yards and rights-of-way, and the city that sprang up around them were
later “ceded” from the Reservation (Halliday and Chehak 1996).
From 1885 to 1914, the Reservation was cut into allotments of 160 acres to each adult and 80
acres to each child. The Tribes lost half of their Reservation, including Lava Hot Springs and
what is now the City of Pocatello, through a series of agreements between the Tribes and the
federal government. In 1888, 1,840 acres were ceded to the Union Pacific Railroad and
homesteaders acquired an additional 297,000 acres. In 1900, 418,000 acres of land was ceded
for homesteading in the southern end of the Reservation. In 1887 the Dawes Act, also known as
the Allotment Act, was ratified establishing individual Indian allotments that further reduced the
area of Indian lands (the Dawes Act did not impact the Reservation until 1911-1916 when the
Reservation was fragmented further by the allotment process and land survey errors). In 1889
another Executive Order ceded almost 240,000 acres in the Marsh Valley area for settlement. A
further cession in 1900 resulted in the loss of almost 420,000 acres, including the land on which
the cities of Pocatello, Chubbuck and Inkom are now located. Ceded lands are shown on Figure
2. In 1924, 30,000 acres were ceded to the Bureau of Reclamation for the establishment of the
American Falls Reservoir. Other concessions were made to the Union Pacific and Utah Northern
Railroads, granting revertible easements and rights of way. The last loss of territory occurred
when the Army Air Corps established a tactical bomber base on the Reservation. This base was
to have been returned to the Tribes at the end of the war, but was instead transferred to the City
of Pocatello and is now the Pocatello Airport. It is located entirely within the Reservation, but
23
the City claims the Tribes have no jurisdiction over the airport and other activities taking place
on the site. The Fort Hall Indian Reservation is now crossed by two interstate highways and U.S.
Highway 91.
The vast cessions of land by native peoples were premised on federal promises that the native
peoples could continue their way of life on homelands of smaller size, free from intrusions of the
majority society. While some of the present rights were secured by treaties between the Tribes
and the United States, many of the rights are the product of federal law or executive orders and
agreements.
3.4. Government/Tribal Management

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Constitution and By-laws were adopted by the Tribes and
approved by the Secretary of the Interior on April 30, 1936. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Inc.
became a federally chartered corporation under the Indian Re-organization Act on April 17,
1937. The Fort Hall Business Council is the official governing body of the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes. The Fort Hall Business Council is a seven member body, whose members serve
staggered 2-year terms. The Constitution provides for an annual meeting of the Tribes’
membership at which resolutions may be passed governing future actions of the Fort Hall
Business Council. The Constitution also provides for special meetings of the membership and
for referendum votes.
The Tribes administer governmental services through various departments and programs.
Services include health programs, planning, zoning, education, and law and order. The Tribal
general fund derives from assets on the Reservation with the majority of monies coming from
leasing of agricultural lands. The Tribes provides services under the authority of Public Law 93-
638 that allows the Tribes to administer federally funded programs.
The Tribes adopted a Land Use Policy Ordinance in 1976-77, which established goals and
adopted a comprehensive land use plan and land use map that has functioned as a Reservation-
wide zoning map. The Land Use Policy Ordinance, implemented by the Land Use Policy
Commission, was established to: 1) Protect the present character of the Reservation; 2) Ensure
clean air, water, open space and quality of human environment; 3) Reduce congestion; and 4)
Promote orderly economic growth to the Reservation. The ordinance regulates land use
activities throughout the Reservation including zoning, building permits, fire permits, trespass
permits, permit review, and other impacts on natural resources. The Land Use Policy
Commission was established in 1979 pursuant to the ordinance and promulgated the Fort Hall
Land Use Operative Policy Guidelines that implement the intent of the Ordinance. The Fort Hall
Land Use Operative Policy Guidelines serve as the zoning code for the Reservation.
The Tribes also created a Land Use Department that is responsible for the specific environmental
protection programs and coordinates ongoing issues with the Land Use Policy Commission. The
Land Use Department has programs responsible for regulating solid waste, air quality, pesticides,
rangeland, selenium, RCRA/CERCLA matters, agricultural management, building permits and
inspections, and mapping and surveying.
Because of the need to strengthen and protect Tribal sovereignty and treaty rights, the Tribes
must maintain relationships and understandings between several different state and federal
agencies, bureaus, and departments. The Tribal government must also be familiar with federal
24
and state policies, procedures, laws, mandates, and executive orders, along with various tribal
policies, laws, ordinances, resolutions, cultural beliefs, and traditional practices.
3.5. Demographics/Socioeconomics
The Reservation is located partially within the Pocatello Metropolitan Statistical Area and is part
of a growing urban region. The four county region that includes portions of the Reservation –
Bannock, Bingham, Caribou, and Power Counties – has grown from 87,647 in 1960 to 132,142
in 2000, an average rate of 8.5 percent per decade, although the growth has been uneven. The
2006 estimated population of the four counties is 137,404, an additional 4 percent increase
(Census Bureau 2007). Regional growth projections for Bannock County by the Metropolitan
Planning Organization are for continued growth. Urban growth in Pocatello, Chubbuck,
American Falls, and Blackfoot impacts the region and the Reservation.
The 1970 U.S. Census enumerated 2,079 Indian people living on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation. The total Indian population within the immediate Fort Hall area in 1970, including
Blackfoot, Pocatello, and American Falls, was 2,639. The enrollment in 1972 was 2,824
persons, and in 1973 it was 2,921. The increase in enrolled Shoshone-Bannock Tribal members
from year to year is due to adding members to the official Tribal rolls, not because of significant
population growth on the Reservation. Out-migration of young people from Fort Hall occurs
because of a lack of employment opportunities. In addition, housing has stabilized population
growth and weighted the population to the very young and very old.
The 1990 Census of Population and Housing identified 5,114 residents on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation, 3,035 were Native American and 2,079 were Caucasian. According to the 2000
Census, the total Reservation population was 5,759. Of this number, 3,609 were Native
American (including non members), 1,792 were Caucasian, 369 were Latino, 151 were two or
more races, 147 were other race, 15 were Asian-American, and 9 were Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander. In 2005 the total Tribal enrollment, including those living off-Reservation was 4,852,
with 3,487 Tribal members living on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
The overall unemployment rate for the Reservation in 2000 was 21.7 percent (16.7 percent for
females and 27.2 percent for males). Labor force participation measures the number of people
who are working or trying to find work and provides an estimate of the number of workers that
would be available for businesses locating on the Reservation. Labor force participation rates
are mainly above 60 percent for the working age population, peaking for women in their early
twenties and for men in their early thirties. The total number of persons, age 16 and over,
available to be in the labor force was 2,334 in 2000 (Comprehensive Plan). The per capita
income on the Reservation in 2000 was $11,309 and the median household income was $28,194.
The poverty rate on the Reservation was 31.5 percent for individuals and 26.7 percent for
families.
The Interstate 15, Exit 80 site is located within the Reservation where Ross Fork Road crosses
the Interstate in an east-west direction. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a Tribal grocery and
clothing store, a gas station and restaurant were built on the northwest side of the interchange.
At about the same time but on the southwest side of the interchange, across from the complex, a
Tribal museum was built. In the late 1980s a gaming facility was constructed within one-fourth
mile west of the enterprise complex on Ross Fork Road. In 2000, the Tribal gas station was
relocated to a new facility approximately one-half mile west on Ross Fork Road.
25
The current development mix at this site includes facilities such as the Casino, Museum, and
Clothes Horse serving a freeway and regional clientele, other businesses such as the Trading Post
Grocery store, a bank, and post office serving mainly the local community, the Trading Post Gas
Station, as well as Tribal offices and Tribal enterprise office operations. The gaming and
commercial operations at the Exit 80 site represent the main source of new non-governmental
money flowing into the Fort Hall community.
3.6. Land Use Policy

Many of the issues discussed below – agriculture, water, wildlife management, mining and
industry, among others – involve land use policy and natural resource allocation issues on the
Fort Hall Indian Reservation. In 1974 the Fort Hall Business Council established a Tribal policy
for the environment on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
Environmental Policy Act (TEPA) was established to (1) declare a tribal policy to encourage
productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation; (2) promote efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and
biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man by imposing mandatory requirements
upon federal agencies dealing with the natural resources on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation; and
(3) enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.
The Declaration of Tribal Environmental Policy states that,
The Tribes, recognizing the profound impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of
all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of
population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource
exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances and recognizing further
the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality on the
Fort Hall Indian Reservation and to its overall welfare and development, declares
that it is the continuing policy of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, in cooperation with
federal government and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all
practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a
manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain
conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill
the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of
tribal members.
The Tribes have taken advantage of Public Law 93-638 to contract a number of federal natural
resource management programs including wildlife management, range management, forestry,
fisheries, wildfire control, and solid waste management. The Tribes also administer some EPA
programs including air quality, water quality, and solid waste management. The Tribes have US
DOE-funded programs for emergency management and management of hazardous materials, and
they participate in Bonneville Power Administration’s salmon recovery program. Many of the
Tribal environmental or natural resource programs have been established under the Land Use
Department and the Land Use Policy Commission.
It has always been the intent and action of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to promote the
conservation, protection, restoration, and enhancement of natural resources. The Fort Hall
26
Business Council has established the following policy in order to provide guidance in
determining Tribal goals and objectives for affected resources in the Snake River Basin.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes will pursue, promote, and where necessary, initiate efforts to
restore the Snake River systems and affected unoccupied lands to a natural condition. This
includes the restoration of component resources to conditions which most closely represent the
ecological features associated with a natural riverine ecosystem. In addition, the Tribes will
work to ensure the protection, Preservation, and where appropriate, the enhancement of Rights
reserved by the Tribes under the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 and any inherent aboriginal rights.
3.7. Land Use

In 2000 and 2001 the Tribes’ Attorneys began work on a new code to be known as the Fort Hall
Land Use Regulations. The new Fort Hall Land Use Regulations, or zoning areas, have been
developed to meet the needs of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (see Figure 4). The proposed new
classifications allow the Tribes to ensure there are adequate lands for future development, and to
protect the health, safety and well being of all people living on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
The new land use zones include the following categories.
 Irrigated Farming and Dryland Farming
 Grazing (Rangeland)
 Local and Interstate Commercial
 Rural/Residential Development
 Government and Institutional Facilities
 Open Space (Parks, Recreation and Open Space)
 Mining Areas
Specific actions or management guidance for each of these areas is included below.
3.7.1. Irrigated Farming and Dryland Farming
The Fort Hall Reservation represents one of Southern Idaho’s most productive agricultural
resources, comprised of farms, rangelands, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands,
Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP) lands, native species propagation, allotted
water, and a pesticide control program for the application of agricultural chemicals. The Fort
Hall Indian Reservation is deeply rooted in agricultural land use through the 1868 Fort Bridger
Treaty, which envisioned the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes making a transition to an agricultural
society. One of the provisions of this Treaty was that the United States government would aid in
the transition from an agrarian society that relied on hunting and gathering to one that sustained
itself by the production of agricultural products. Articles 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the Treaty deal
specifically with this transition by requiring that the Federal government uphold certain trust
responsibilities to help any tribal farmer achieve success in agriculture.
The Agricultural Resource Management (ARM) Program – part of the Land Use Department – is
authorized by the Fort Hall Business Council to manage the agricultural resources on the
Reservation by providing oversight, education, and technical support for every aspect of the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ agricultural programs. It is a governing principle of the ARM
program that the right to cultivate the soil is a foundational treaty right of the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes. This right guarantees that the Tribes can choose the methods of cultivation and retain
27
some measure of control over the operations taking place on the Reservation. ARM is
responsible for overseeing Tribal lands leased out for agricultural purposes and ensuring that
practices on these lands use BMPs applicable to agriculture and chemical use to protect the land,
air and water quality on the Reservation. Approximately 34 percent of Reservation lands are
leased to non-Indian farmers. Although the Tribe has no control over leased farms, Tribal farms
are shifting toward more organic farming practices because of concerns about the effects of
pesticides on the water and health and well-being of the Tribes. Other agricultural operations
that are privately owned on leased or fee lands are subject to applicable laws and ordinances but
operate without the direction of the Tribes. The majority of farm operations on the Reservation
fall into this category, wherein a farmer leases tribal or tribal member lands from the BIA for a
set number of years, at a pre-determined cost per acre.
The original 1976 Land Use Policy Ordinance describes four broad zoning classifications, one of
which was an “agricultural” zone that included irrigated and dry farming, as well as grazing
lands. The new Land Use Regulations include areas zoned specifically for agriculture use
(Figure 4). An area zoned for agriculture is one in which the primary use of the land is the tilling
of the soil, the raising of crops, horticulture, gardening, the keeping, raising, and grazing of
livestock, domestic animals and fowl, and similar uses, but does not include any commercial or
agricultural industry or business such as agricultural processing or packing plants, farm
equipment, or similar uses. The proposed zoning map generally follows the pattern set by the
1976 map, with its division of the agricultural zone into use areas but the use-classes are not
broken down to dry farming, agriculture, and grazing use areas as they were in the 1976 Plan.
The use areas have been amended to reflect existing use: some lands are being irrigated that lie
outside the area designated for irrigated agriculture on the 1976 Plan, while dry farmed lands
have greatly decreased. Presently around 90,000 acres of irrigated cropland and 110,000 acres of
dryland farming exist on the Reservation. The non-irrigated portions are comprised of dryland
cropland (approximately 34,900 acres), CRP lands, and steppe rangeland used for grazing (BIA
2002). The main crops are potatoes, wheat, sugar beets, barley, hay and alfalfa.
As part of the effort to provide the Reservation with parcels of land that are kept in pristine and
improved condition, the Fort Hall Indian Reservation has enrolled a number of retired farms and
rangeland acres in CRP and CCRP. These programs are managed under the Farm Services
Agency (FSA)/United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Land Use Department
enters into a CRP/CCRP contract with the approval of the Fort Hall Business Council and then
the ARM program administers the day-to-day needs of the parcels, including fencing and
replanting native vegetation. In return for the protection/conservation of a parcel of land, the
program provides allottees, owners of individual Reservation allotments, with income for
practicing conservation on their land.
Both of these conservation programs provide areas where native plant species are protected and
replanted, wildlife is given preference, and conservation efforts are enforced to protect the land
and water. Lands held in a CRP contract are typically lands that were dry farmed for wheat
products that have since been taken out of production to allow native vegetation to return and
provide wildlife habitat. The program also enrolls qualifying rangeland, typically those lands
abutting watercourses, to rest the land and let the soil replenish and rebuild necessary nutrients.
In contrast to CRP, CCRP is a conservation effort directed towards restoring waterways to
rebuild or protect natural habitat for fisheries or wildlife with the intent of creating a
conservation area held in perpetuity. The program enrolls qualifying waterways such as streams,
28
creeks, or rivers and fences them off to protect them from grazing by cattle or other domestic
animals.
There are several Tribal Resolutions and Ordinances that guide use of lands for agricultural
purposes in addition to Federal and agency rules that govern the programs (Appendix A). One of
the responsibilities of the ARM department is the monitoring of discharge, application and
storage of agricultural chemicals. In 1991 the EPA approved the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes plan
of certification of applicators of pesticides for restricted use and the ARM program recently
finished a comprehensive plan to monitor, license and permit the application of pesticides and
herbicides across the Reservation. Pending approval from the Fort Hall Business Council, this
code will enable the ARM program to begin the process of controlling every aspect of the
agricultural chemical application. The ARM program in cooperation with the West Nile Virus
Advisory Committee (Tribal Health, Fisheries and Wildlife, Water Resources, University of
Idaho Extension, and IHS) has met with specialists in the mosquito and West Nile Virus field
and is developing informational material and a control plan for mosquitoes.
Resource depletion and the threat of fertilizer and pesticide overuse and misapplication are
concerns associated with agricultural production. The Reservations’ surface water, groundwater,
soil and air have been polluted as a result of outdated farming practices that continue to pose a
potential risk to the Tribal natural and cultural resources. Sheet and gully erosion from dryland
farming has washed thousands of tons of topsoil into Fort Hall’s streams. The Ross Fork
watershed in particular has been adversely affected by dryland farming and Bannock Creek has
also been affected.
A number of programs and practices have been developed by the ARM program to provide for
sustainable agricultural practices, to encourage restoration of native plants, to offer informational
and educational programs, and to protect natural and cultural resources.
3.7.2. Rangeland
Of the 544,000 acres that comprise the Reservation, approximately 350,000 acres are
characterized as rangeland, including range units, stock trails and the bottoms area. Rangeland is
a type of land on which the indigenous vegetation is predominantly grasses, grasslike plants,
forbs, or shrubs and is managed as a natural ecosystem. On the Reservation, rangeland includes
natural and seeded grasslands, shrublands, meadows, and riparian areas. Rangelands are
interspersed and transition with a mosaic pattern of woodlands including aspen, willow, juniper,
mountain mahogany, and with coniferous forest in the upper elevations.
Implicit in the Tribes’ land use priorities are maintaining a homeland where both present and
future generations of the Tribes will live and flourish. Rangelands provide the foundation for
various multiple uses and values to the Tribes. In addition to the main use of livestock grazing
some other uses include cultural/social activities such as gathering roots, willow canes, berries,
and medicines; forage and habitat for game and nongame wildlife; warm and cold water
fisheries; water quality enhancement, groundwater recharge; and outdoor recreation.
The Tribes’ 1976 Land Use Policy Ordinance that differentiated agricultural “use areas” included
areas designated for grazing and for open space; the 2005 update categories all of these lands as
used for grazing. The Tribes have contractual responsibilities for the Range Program from the
BIA through Public Law 93-638. The Tribal Range Program operates under the 25 CFR Grazing
Permit procedures. The Tribes have also enacted a Livestock Ordinance that provides specific
29
rules for governing grazing on the Tribal Range (LWOR2-S2, Section 800). The Tribal Range
Department includes conditions and stipulations that the lessees must follow when they sign their
grazing permit contracts. The Fort Hall Business Council, the Land Use Policy Commission,
and the Tribal Range Department work cooperatively to approve stocking rates, and award the
allocation preferences for Tribal member and non-tribal producers.
Livestock grazing on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation is administered with 5-year grazing
permits. New permits are awarded every 5 years on the basis of competitive bidding. Minimum
bid rates are determined for Tribal Members and non-tribal members by an official appraisal that
is then adopted by the Fort Hall Business Council and the Land Use Policy Commission and
implemented by the Tribal Range Program. The bulk of the lands on the Reservation are used
primarily for grazing purposes by local ranchers that pay for the rights to graze animals units on
the range. The cost of permits is determined by the animal units monthly (AUM) that will be on
the range. The majority of the range is utilized and specific sites are in need of noxious weed
control. A range improvement fee is also charged for construction and maintenance of range
improvements (e.g., fences and water developments). Maintenance of range improvements and
oversight of grazing utilization is conducted by the Tribal Range Program. The Tribal Fish and
Game Department oversees permittee compliance for numbers of livestock moved onto the range
and enforcement of the Livestock Ordinance.
Fourteen separate Range Units are permitted and managed for livestock grazing on the
Reservation consisting of both Tribal rangeland and allotted rangeland. Livestock grazing within
the Reservation is managed by the Tribal Range Department to provide sustainable yields of
forage that when used properly will maintain rangeland health, and maintain animal health and
growth. Range units, season of use, and AUMs are described in Table 2. In addition to livestock
permits on grazing units, the Tribal Range Department also issues crossing permits to cross the
Reservation lands with herds of sheep and cattle moving onto or off of adjacent state and federal
lands. Crossing permits are used both in the spring and fall and allow operators to move their
livestock across Reservation lands within designated stock driveways for up to three days.
Approximately 40 crossing permits are issued annually.
Table 2. Range Units on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.

Range Unit Grazing Season of Animal Unit
Acres Animal Units
Number Use Months (AUM)
1 22,652 Apr 15 – Oct 15 3,775 629
3 114,067 Apr 15 – Sept 15 19,011 3,802
6A 8,607 Apr 15 – Sept 15 1,435 287
6B 26,112 May 01 – Nov 01 4,352 725
6C 16,501 June 01 – Nov 01 1,941 388
6D 4,417 May 15 – Oct 01 609 135
10 18,473 May 01 – Oct 15 3,359 611
21 1,170 May 01 – Oct 01 202 40
23 18,617 May 01 – Nov 01 1,692 282
25 19,866 May 01 – Oct 15 1,987 361
26 13,341 Apr 15 – Oct 15 1,779 296
27 35,459 May 01 – Nov 01 4,728 788
27A 1,119 June 01 – Nov 01 140 28
28 6,500 May 15 – Oct 15 560 112
TOTAL 306,901 45,459 8,462
30
Management of Tribal rangelands is based upon a balanced use of available vegetation between
domestic and wild herbivores that is compatible with properly functioning resource conditions
and Tribal values. The overutilization of lands and degradation of water resources by livestock
is an ever increasing threat on the Reservation. During the range season of 2000, there were over
9,000 head of livestock grazing in the various range units, privately permitted allotted lands on
the Reservation. Most of these were through range permits through the BIA Range Management
Department.
In 2002, the Tribes contracted the Range Management Program from the BIA, and are currently
working to update and revise the outdated Range Management Plan. In many of the range units
inadequate range management practices have resulted in damage to riparian areas on perennial
and ephemeral streams. The degradation of riparian areas, has contributed to water quality
issues, such as increased stream bank erosion and sedimentation leading to increased summer
water temperatures, decreases in available trout spawning areas and egg hatching success;
changes in macro invertebrate communities, and reduced stream primary production. In other
areas of the range units, the productivity and general healthiness of the range is good, but
additional coordination with other Tribal resource department sis necessary to improve
management strategies. Additional concerns are the current drought conditions, high wildfire
danger, adequate water availability, noxious and invasive weeds, and cultural resources.
Riparian areas and wetlands often produce 10 to 15 times the amounts of forage compared to
drier upland sites and as such are especially important to livestock grazing. Because livestock
tend to congregate in these areas, the vegetation is utilized more intensely than on adjacent
upland sites. Grazing can have substantial effects on vegetation and soils, resulting in decreased
vigor and biomass and alteration of species composition and diversity. Improper grazing of
riparian areas can change and reduce riparian vegetation, result in streambed widening, alter
water flows and velocity, and decrease water quality. Changes to water quality can include
increased water temperatures, nutrients, suspended sediments, and bacterial counts. Goals that
will be in the new Range Management Plan to address some of these issues are described below.
Goals for livestock management include: Continue to manage livestock grazing on the
Reservation as a sustainable and economically beneficial form of agriculture that is compatible
with a wide array of other sustainable uses of the rangeland resources; Implement grazing
management plans to provide necessary periodic rest or deferment from grazing during the early
growing season in upland areas and during the latter part of the growing season in riparian areas,
and; Educate and inform livestock lessees regarding proper grazing management and effective
livestock herding practices to achieve riparian area management objectives.
Rangelands are subject to unpredictable disturbances, both natural and human-caused, that can
impact the short-term and long-term productivity and site stability of the vegetation resources.
The Tribal Range Department responds to these events (such as wildfire, drought, insect or
disease epidemics) with management adjustments and rehabilitation plans to reduce or offset the
impacts to rangeland health and rangeland users. There is a long history of large wildfires on
Fort Hall rangelands. Large wildfires are frequently indicative of heavy fuel loads. Livestock
grazing can be used as an effective tool to reduce vegetative fine fuels by harvesting grasses and
forbs that create hazardous wildfire conditions when left standing dry. The Tribal Range
Department will work to develop flexible grazing strategies to target hazardous wildfire fuels on
an annual basis in response to annual growing conditions and according to pre-suppression plans
for critical habitat or residential protection.
31
Data and information regarding the status and changes in rangeland resources resulting from
applied management and natural or human disturbances are needed by the Tribes’ resource
managers to assure fulfillment of the obligation to preserve Indian sovereignty for future
generations. Range management includes long and short term observations and measurements of
vegetation and soil resources as the basis for range management planning. Monitoring studies
that address specific statements or quantitative objectives for the desired future conditions for
soil, vegetation, water quality, and species diversity are used to evaluate the success and
compatibility of range management and land use strategies. Monitoring plans are currently being
written as part of the Range Management Plan. That plan will include goals for implementing
and maintaining short and long term monitoring plans that include participation and cooperation
with livestock lessees and/or wildlife biologists as appropriate to conduct annual evaluations of
compliance with permit conditions; making short term adjustments to livestock management;
making informed and documented assessments of progress toward long term goals; and revising
management plans and/or goals for desired vegetation conditions.
One of the problems facing rangelands on the Reservation is invasion by noxious weeds and
other invasive, non-native species. The sites most vulnerable to weed invasion occur primarily
in disturbed areas such as roadsides, areas adjacent to agricultural fields, and other areas where
supplemental water from runoff favors plants that are fast growing and prolific seed producers,
characteristics that are typical of invasive species. To address these conditions the Tribal Range
Department will: Implement plans and treatments to contain, reduce, or eliminate existing
noxious and invasive plant infestations that threaten multiple uses on rangeland and diminish
biodiversity; Participate with adjacent landowners and land management agencies to improve
technologies to manage noxious and invasive plants, and; Incorporate measures to achieve and/or
maintain proper functioning condition on all perennial streams throughout the Reservation.
The new RMP will also contain goals for wildlife/livestock interactions including:
 Developing a shared vision of desired future conditions for vegetation species
composition with wildlife biologists based upon ecological site potential, natural shrub
and tree overstory dynamics (i.e. fire), current conditions, and other multiple uses;
 Maintaining an integrated, cooperative approach to resource planning, management,
monitoring, and evaluation of ecological conditions with Tribal Wildlife Biologists; and
 Developing cooperative monitoring procedures to ensure consistency and compatibility
of data used to evaluate rangeland vegetation, wildlife and domestic livestock herbivory,
and the status of wildlife population trends.
3.7.3. Fort Hall Bottoms
The Fort Hall Bottoms is a unique resource area for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes that is used
for several practices and purposes. The Fort Hall Bottoms consist of approximately 36,000 acres
of lush spring-fed natural grassland meadows and wetlands bordering the Snake River (Figure 7).
Historically, tribal members lived in the Bottoms area and utilized the resources for cultural,
spiritual, gathering purposes and agricultural practices. Many tribal members continue to gather
plants and harvest animals from the Bottoms for cultural and spiritual practices as well as for
food and medicinal supplies. The Bottoms are also utilized for recreational purposes including
hunting, fishing, swimming, camping, etc.
The Bottoms area, which is tribally owned in common and to which individual Indians receive
haying assignments, is used by various Tribal programs, departments, and individual interests.
32
These include Range Program, Fish and Game Department, Agriculture Resource Management
Program, Tribal Roads Department, Land Use Department, Land Use Policy Commission, Fish
and Wild Life Department, Buffalo Enterprises, Wildlife and Big Game Department, Cattlemen,
Horse Owners, Hunter and Fishermen and Individual Recreational, Traditional and Spiritual
Tribal Members.
Tribal member cattle are allowed on the Bottoms the first week of October to the fifth of May
every year. In the fall, non-tribal cattle from Range Units 3 and 6a are trailed to the Bottoms.
Non-tribal cattle can remain on the Bottoms for a time period designated by the Land Use
Commission and the Fort Hall Business Council. This time period consists of a minimum of two
weeks to one month and varies due to forage availability and climatic conditions. Non-tribal
members pay the minimum appraised bid rate as approved by the Fort Hall Business Council and
the Land Use Policy Commission to utilize this grazing resource.
Figure 7. Location of the Fort Hall Bottoms within the Reservation.
In general livestock grazing occurs on the Fort Hall Bottoms during the winter on feedlots/hay
meadows. Heavy use on feedlots during the winter in the Fort Hall Bottoms has resulted in loss
of palatable woody vegetation (e.g., cottonwood, willow, etc.) and riparian area function. During
the spring and summer livestock are moved to the uplands and mountainous areas. Most riparian
areas on the Fort Hall Bottoms are utilized by livestock and use has affected riparian area
function. Some aspen and mountain shrub communities have also undergone high utilization
rates resulting in less productive and sustainable plant communities.
33
Hay harvesting activities occur during the summer and fall primarily on the Fort Hall Bottoms.
Harvested hay is normally stored for winter use and/or sold. The density of noxious/invasive
weeds is high in most hay fields. Over 30 Tribal cattlemen utilize the Bottoms for hay meadows
and feed yards. These feed yards do not follow a commercial design for growing and finishing
cattle but are utilized for winter feeding and haying purposes. Tribal cattlemen are assigned feed
yards and/or hay meadows every five years to winter cattle. Many stay within the family
indefinitely. The hay meadows are harvested for one cutting of grass hay. Tribal members are
not charged for these uses. Tribal member cattle are allowed on the Bottoms the first week of
October to the fifth of May every year. In the fall, non-tribal cattle from range units 3 and 6a are
trailed to the Bottoms. Non-tribal cattle can remain on the Bottoms for a time period designated
by the Land Use Commission and the Fort Hall Business Council. This time period consists of a
minimum of two weeks to one month and varies due to forage availability and climatic
conditions. Non-tribal members pay the minimum high bid rate to utilize this grazing resource.
Currently, the bid rate is $11.50/AUM. Many livestock grazing permit holders use forage
produced on the forest to meet their year-round grazing needs. Some Tribal resource specialists
have indicated that heavy livestock grazing has damaged soils and riparian and upland vegetation
and conflicts with wildlife and fisheries. Livestock grazing has been implicated in declining
reproduction of cottonwood and aspen communities and degradation of water quality in streams
supporting cold-water biota (Elliott and Sawyer 2002).
Approximately 300-400 hundred wild horses roam the Fort Hall Bottoms. Some of these horses
have been claimed and branded by tribal members and are often trained as working or pleasure
horses. In the past, family owned wild horses were used as an income source. However, the
majority of the horses have not been claimed by legal ownership methods. Safety issues can also
arise when wild horses move to more urban areas of the Reservation and interfere with traffic,
etc. Currently, there is not an official management program in place for these herds. A more
official management program would be of benefit to improve breeding stock, animal health and
resource management. Currently horse grazing occurs year around on the Fort Hall Bottoms.
Unregulated horse grazing has resulted in inbreeding and increased population levels. The
number of horses on the Reservation is unknown, but likely ranges from 500-1000 animals.
A buffalo herd ranging from approximately 300-400 head (including cows, bulls, yearlings and
calves) are managed on the Fort Hall Bottoms. Buffalo grazing is confined to two pastures
(north and south) in the Fort Hall Bottoms and both pastures are grazed year around, to at least
some extent. The buffalo are contained in pastures located on the middle side on the Northeast
end of the Bottoms. A tribal member manages the herd under the Tribal Enterprise program.
The herd is fed a diet of grass and alfalfa hay through the winter months. Buffalo are also used
for spiritual and cultural practices. In addition, hunts are sold to non-tribal members and buffalo
are harvested for a variety of meat products for distribution at local stores and restaurants.
Currently, the Bottoms area is not managed intensively. Areas of concern that would benefit
from best management practices would be noxious and invasive weed control, development of
off-site water to improve riparian area use and management of the wild horse herd. Heavy use at
places along Spring Creek and Clear Creek has resulted in loss of riparian vegetation, increase
erosion, and the spread of noxious/invasive weeds. Currently the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes is
seeking to improve riparian area function through fencing along streams and noxious/invasive
weed treatments (Bannock Ecological 2007).
34
3.7.4. Commercial Areas

The new Land Use Regulations include areas zoned for economic development or commercial
use. This includes local and interstate commercial development. The Draft Comprehensive Plan
contains an economic development plan and provides details about the features that must be
addressed for economic development to succeed on the Reservation.
In order to create the conditions for economic development, usable sites for commercial and
industrial activity need to be available. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have a number of sites
designated for commercial and industrial activity, but not all of them are ready for use. Long-
term economic development objectives would include withdrawing sites and providing them
with road and rail access, water, sewer and electric utilities, communications infrastructure and
public services such as rapid-response police and fire protection to ensure sites are available for
development. The Tribes would also work to ensure that there is an adequate utilities capacity
available, including roads and bridges and communications infrastructure among other things.
The Tribes also recognize that economic development requires trained, reliable labor. Tribal
government will need to assist in this aspect of economic development by providing training and
subsidization of apprenticeships for workers in all trades. Lack of care facilities for children and
the elderly is a barrier to employment for many workers and Tribal government would also be
solicited for assistance by providing child and elderly care. Good governmental practices are
needed to create a high level of institutional capacity that will show up as membership support.
The internal bureaucracy of the Tribal government must ensure a high degree of accountability
and credibility to retain that support.
The Tribes provide a wide range of services to tribally owned businesses and assist in securing
SBA and other financing, and should continue to do so. In addition, the Tribes would encourage
and support regional economic development activity through recruitment of outside employers.
Tax relief and other concessions could be provided to bring a major employer in. The Tribes
would support providing technical support and easy-terms financing to new start-up businesses.
The Draft Comprehensive Plan includes a Master Plan for the Exit 80 area. The Master Plan
serves as a guide for development and designates land suitable for the proposed expansion. The
overall planning concept is to resolve issues and make improvements in the use of existing sites
and developed areas, rather than start over at new locations. Alternatives vary from
improvements to existing facilities (lowest cost and lowest long-term return) to completely new
facilities and design as a destination resort (highest cost and higher long-term returns).
Regional economic development at the Pocatello Airport is also proposed as part of the larger
economic development plan. There are a number of sites located on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation along Interstate 86 and Union Pacific railroad mainline, centered on the Pocatello
Airport. Collectively the Pocatello Airport and the nearby former FMC/Astaris sites present
unique opportunities for transport-related and transport-dependent industries and services. These
opportunities would create employment and income as well as improving the Tribes’ relations
with surrounding communities.
Other sites considered for development opportunities in the economic development plan are the
Exit 89 (South Blackfoot Exit), Rainbow Beach, and Fort Hall sites (U.S. Highway 91 – Fort
Hall Enterprise Development).
35
3.7.5. Rural/Residential Development

This use area is designated primarily for Tribal member housing in the new Land Use
Regulations. Additional housing is needed on the Reservation for Tribal members. The
Comprehensive Plan contains plans for housing that would provide each community member
decent, affordable, and safe housing on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, according to their
needs. Housing would be developed in the areas identified for this use in the new Land Use
Regulations. The plan includes a provision that Tribal housing and homesite assignments will be
made within one quarter mile of the domestic water lines. Because some of this area is in
agricultural use at this time a further refinement of the areas to be developed for housing will be
required. The Tribal government would be responsible for creating the conditions under which
Tribal members can build or buy decent housing for themselves. Providing Tribal housing to
extended families, where desired, as a way or preserving social structure and reducing social
problems in tribally-provided housing would be supported.
Housing projects would need to take into consideration such factors as soils, water resources,
infrastructure availability, etc. In determining siting locations, effects to transportation,
infrastructure, public safety, soils, water resources, wildlife, etc. would be analyzed. A
combined suitability and locational analysis would be used for choosing sites. Natural suitability
is based primarily on soil conditions; the two factors considered are limitations for construction
of homes without basements, and limitations for septic tank drainfields (areas with sewer service
are exempted from the later constraint). Locational considerations include access to
transportation and utility infrastructure, as well as neighboring uses.
3.7.6. Open Space (Parks, Recreation and Open Space)
Open space areas are scattered throughout the Reservation and include parks, recreational areas,
and undesignated open space areas. These areas have been reserved from agriculture, mining,
and other uses for the recreational use and enjoyment by Tribal members and the general public.
3.7.7. Mining Areas
A number of locations on the Reservation possess surface and subsurface minerals (e.g.,
phosphate) and mineral materials (e.g., sand, gravel). Phosphate mining (primarily for fertilizer)
has been an economic factor in southeastern Idaho for over 100 years. The Gay Mine was
developed on the Reservation in 1946 and was the largest phosphate producing mine in Idaho
until it ceased operation in 1993. Annual ore production reached 2 million tons annually at peak
extraction rates in the 1970s. Areas zoned for mining under the new Land Use Regulations are
currently used primarily for range and wildlife habitat, but could become developed at some
future time.
3.8. Physical Resources

In addition to the use areas designated by the new Land Use Regulations, there are a number of
physical resources that would be affected by actions in the different areas.
3.8.1. Air
In 1988 a Tribal Air Quality Program was established on the Reservation through a grant from
the EPA. The program's mission is to measure air quality parameters, including radiation,
particulate matter, and meteorological conditions on the Reservation, and in coordination with
state and federal agencies, provide notification of air-borne toxic releases or elevated levels of
36
radiation. Providing safe air quality is consistent with protection of treaty rights, including the
health and welfare of people of the Tribes.
In 1993 the Tribes enacted two Tribal ordinances to protect air quality on the Reservation:
 The Air Quality Protection Act
 Rules and Regulations for the Control of Air Pollution.
Tribal Policy Statement on Air Quality

It is the policy of the Fort Hall Business Council of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation to preserve, protect and enhance the air quality of the Reservation for current and
future generations in order to protect the health, safety, economic security and environment of the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and members thereof and all residents of the Reservation. Air is an
essential resource that must be protected from harmful levels of pollution. Improving air quality is a
matter of Reservation-wide concern and is in the public interest.
These ordinances were approved by the Fort Hall Business Council and the U.S. Department of
Interior, and include all the elements necessary to control outside air pollution on the
Reservation. The Tribal Air Ordinances were reviewed and approved by EPA through the Tribal
Authority Rule (TAR) and the Tribes have received Treatment As State (TAS) status for several
parts of the Clean Air Act, including Sections 105, 106, 107, and 505. In order to provide
consistency with Federal standards, the ordinances adopted the EPA’s National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the six major criteria pollutants:
 Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
 Carbon monoxide (CO)
 Ozone (O3)
 Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
 Lead (Pb)
 Nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
In addition, the Federal Air Rules for Reservations, adopted in March, 2005 by the EPA, apply
within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation in order to protect human health and the
environment. These rules include limits on visible emissions, fugitive dust, open burning, as
well as agricultural and forest burning. This Rulemaking also requires that industry and other
emission sources register with EPA, and provide annual emission estimates to them.
As part of their responsibilities, the Air Quality Program participates in numerous programs.
The air quality staff operates the Environmental Monitoring Station (EMS) located across from
the Tribal Museum Building that includes a meteorological station, a radioactive tritium sampler,
a Hi-Volume Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) air sampler, and a radio-iodine sampler. The
site also features a display board that provides current weather and radiological data for Tribal
members and the public. The information is also available at www.shobanairquality.com and
www.idahoop.org/newop. Particulate monitors (PM10 Hi-Vols), continuous air monitoring
samplers (TEOMS), and a meteorological station are also operated by the air quality staff near
the FMC and Simplot plants just outside of Pocatello – the FMC plant was a commercial
elemental phosphate production facility that is now inactive and the Simplot Don Plant is a
37
fertilizer manufacturing complex. The staff also operate a monitoring site at Ballard Road, just
east of Highway 91, initiated in April of 2008. This includes two PM10 Federal Reference
Method PM2.5 monitors, and two Hi-Vol PM10 Federal Reference Monitors. The monitoring data
is collected and quality assured and submitted to EPA where it is stored. The data summaries
can be accessed by the public through the EPA web-pages, or summaries made available upon
request by the Air Quality staff.
Because the Tribal monitors recorded several PM10 violations in the late 1990s, the EPA
designated a section of the Reservation, near the phosphorus plants, as the Fort Hall Non-
Attainment Area (FHNAA), which is under the jurisdiction of the Tribes and EPA (Figure 8).
The adjacent area is known as the Portneuf Valley Non-Attainment Area (PVNAA). The high
24-hour PM10 concentrations in the non-attainment areas have been associated with wintertime
stagnation episodes characterized by a deep stable layer, a strong subsidence inversion during the
day, cold temperatures, light winds, high relative humidity, fog, and on many occasions snow
cover. Chemical analyses of PM10 samples collected during these episodes indicate a large
fraction of the mass consists of secondary aerosols including ammonium nitrate,
monoammonium phosphate, and ammonium sulfate. During nocturnal periods, the light winds
and stable conditions inhibit dispersion, reducing the plume rise from buoyant industrial sources.
The strong inversion that forms during the day traps pollutants near the surface, and the light
winds provide little ventilation. The cold temperatures and high relative humidity of wintertime
episodes favor the formation of nitrate particles. Fog is a common feature of most of the
wintertime episodes and wet chemical mechanisms are thought to promote the formation of
sulfate and phosphate aerosols (IDEQ 2004).
38
Figure 8. Non-Attainment Area Boundaries.
Because of the chemical constituents determined from the PM10 analysis, the EPA promulgated a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address emissions from the FMC facility – the main source
of the emissions – and to ensure that air quality in the FHNAA meets the PM10 standards. The
FIP contains emission limits, work practice requirements, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements that EPA believes represent reasonably available control technology
(RACT). The FMC facility announced in late 2001 that they would cease operations by
December 31, 2001; the actual date of closure was December 11, 2001. The plant is no longer in
operation and is undergoing decontamination and decommissioning (IDEQ 2004). Between
2000 and 2005 a decrease in emissions for the industrial source category was seen across the area
(Figure 9); this was mainly due to the closure of the FMC facility. As modeled, the industrial
emissions for all pollutants represented are predicted to decrease through the 20-year horizon
after the 2000 base year emissions. The FIP does not take into consideration any other sources in
the non-attainment area.
39
Figure 9. Emission Inventory Trends for the Industrial Source Category.
The IDEQ 2004 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the PVNAA indicates that the
main PM10 sources in the Pocatello area are geologic, secondary aerosol, primary particulate
from phosphate industry sources, residential woodburning, and mobile sources. The geologic
portion includes road dust, while the mobile source is tail pipe emissions. The primary PM10
emissions from automobiles are insignificant; however, the automobiles emit significant NOx
emissions, which are precursors of secondary ammonium nitrate. Secondary aerosols make
significant contributions during the winter stagnation periods (IDEQ 2004). In 2000, PM10 in the
PVNAA was primarily from paved roads’ re-entrained dust and the largest source of PM2.5 was
agricultural windblown dust. The largest source of NH3 and SO2 in the PVNAA was the J. R.
Simplot Don Plant. In contrast, within the general area the largest source of NH3 was livestock
(IDEQ 2004). Simplot air emissions include Fluoride from cooling towers that are deposited on
downwind soils and flora, resulting in historical exceedences of the State Fluoride standard.
Because of the proximity of Fort Hall to Pocatello the sources and conclusions generally apply.
However, because Fort Hall is a less urbanized area, differences exist; fewer emissions from
mobile sources would be expected and there would be greater contributions from road dust and
agricultural operations. Typically, agricultural operations are generically classified as soil
preparation, soil maintenance, and crop harvesting operations. Reasonably available control
measures and BMPs have been implemented to reduce windblown dust from agricultural
sources. Techniques for reducing PM10 from road dust have also been implemented in the area.
Improvement in the air quality in the non-attainment areas has been the result of permanent and
enforceable control measures, in addition to the closure of the FMC facility in 2001. The Tribes
anticipate that the area will soon be designated as an attainment area as no violations have been
recorded for several years. However, because the area is currently a non-attainment area, new
industries that emit particulate matter may be required to install additional emission controls
before operating. These control measures may be costly to new industries and therefore it is
important for economic development purposes to continue to monitor air quality and work
towards redesignation of the area as an attainment area. The Tribal Air Quality Department will
40
continue to monitor pollutants and require reasonable limits on emissions from existing emission
sources as well as new industries established on the Reservation.
In addition to its monitoring responsibilities, the Tribal Air Quality Department is responsible for
regulating and permitting emission sources on the Reservation. Emissions are restricted by the
air quality ordinances as follows, “Notwithstanding the general and specific emission standards,
limitations, and regulations contained in this Section, no person shall cause or permit emissions
from any air contaminant source whatsoever which cause or are likely to cause injury or
detriment to the public, the environment, or to business or property” (Sections 4.01 and 4.02).
The Tribal Air Quality Regulations are similar to the State of Idaho, and include permitting
requirements, visible emission rules, fugitive dust controls, open burning rules, to control air
emissions on the Reservation. The Tribal Air Quality Department also assists the fire
department when there are plans for prescribed fires or by reporting meteorological forecasts and
conditions in the case of wildland fires on the Reservation.
The Tribal Air Quality Department has participated in a number of studies over the years
including a source apportionment study with EPA in 2000, to determine sources of particulate
matter causing the violations, and a saturation study in 2006 to determine particulate levels at
various locations on the Reservation. The Tribal Air Quality Department also cooperated with
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in a health study that showed a
correlation between clinic visits at Fort Hall and elevated particulate matter as recorded on Tribal
monitors.
The Tribes also participate in the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), which is made up
of western states, federal agencies, and tribes, and was established in 1997 to protect air quality
in the region. This voluntary organization is administered jointly by the Western Governors'
Association (WGA) and the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC). The group is
implementing regional planning processes to improve visibility in all Western Class I areas by
providing the technical and policy tools needed by states and tribes to implement the federal
regional haze rule. The majority of the Reservation is a Class II airshed which allows for
moderate deterioration associated with moderate, well-controlled industrial, and population
growth; however, the Mount Putnam and Bannock Peak areas have historically been managed by
the Tribes as sensitive areas. Several resolutions have been passed restricting activities in these
areas in order to protect their values.
3.8.2. Soils
The Fort Hall Indian Reservation and a small area of Indian-controlled land south of the
Reservation along Bannock Creek make up the soil survey area described in this section (USDA
SCS et al. 1977). The soil associations in the Fort Hall survey area have been grouped into six
general kinds of landscape for broad interpretative purposes. Each of the broad groups and their
included soil associations are described in the following pages. The brief profile description
given for each major soil is typical for that soil.
3.8.2.1. Nearly Level to Moderately Sloping Soils on Bottom Lands, Low Terraces, and
Alluvial Fans
The soils in this group formed in alluvium and are generally very deep. These soils are mainly
on bottom lands near the American Falls Reservoir and the lower part of valleys. Elevation
ranges from 4,350 feet near the American Falls Reservoir to 5,200 feet in mountain valleys. The
41
mean annual precipitation ranges from 8 to 14 inches, the mean annual soil temperature ranges
from 47° to 52° F, and the frost-free season ranges from 100 to 120 days. The soils are used for
range, meadow hay, wildlife, and recreation. Some areas are used for irrigated and dry farmed
crops. Three of the associations of the Fort Hall Area are in this group. They make up 9 percent
of the survey area (USDA SCS et al. 1977).
Snake-Philbon Association
Nearly level, deep and very deep silt loams and peats on bottom lands
This association consists of somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained soils, mainly on
bottom lands near the American Falls Reservoir. These soils formed in alluvium and partly
decomposed plant remains. Vegetation is mainly sedges, rushes, and other water tolerant plants.
Elevation is about 4,400 feet. This association makes up about 4 percent of the survey area. It is
about 65 percent Snake soils and 15 percent Philbon soils. Snake soils are on low terraces. They
have a surface layer of grayish-brown silt loam 8 inches thick. Philbon soils are on low terraces
and bottom lands. They have a surface layer of very dark gray peat 22 inches thick. This
association is used for range, wildlife, and recreation (USDA SCS et al. 1977).
Penoyer-Parehat Association
Nearly level and very gently sloping, deep silt loams on bottom lands and low terraces
This association consists of well-drained to poorly drained soils. These soils are on bottom lands
and low terraces along Bannock Creek south of the community of Fort Hall and along the
Portneuf River in the southeastern part of the survey area. These soils formed in alluvium.
Vegetation is grasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,400 to 5,200 feet. This association
makes up about 3 percent of the survey area. It is about 50 percent Penoyer soils and 30 percent
Parehat soils. Penoyer soils are on bottom lands along streams. They are light brownish-gray
silt loam to a depth of 60 inches. Parehat soils are on low terraces. They have a surface layer of
grayish-brown silt loam 9 inches thick. This association generally is used for meadow hay and
grazing, and the better drained soils are used for irrigated crops (USDA SCS et al. 1977).
Parehat-McDole Association
Nearly level to moderately sloping, deep silt loams on low terraces and alluvial fans
This association consists of well-drained to poorly drained soils on low terraces and alluvial fans
along the Blackfoot River, Lincoln Creek, and Ross Fork Creek. These soils formed in alluvium
derived mainly from loess. Vegetation is grasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,350 to
5,200 feet. This association makes up about 2 percent of the survey area. It is about 45 percent
Parehat soils and 35 percent McDole soils. Parehat soils are on low terraces. They have a
surface layer of grayish-brown silt loam 9 inches thick. McDole soils are on alluvial fans. They
have a surface layer of grayish-brown silt loam 10 inches thick. This association is used for
irrigated crops and dryfarmed small grain, hay, and pasture (USDA SCS et al. 1977).
3.8.2.2. Nearly Level to Moderately Steep Soils on Alluvial Terraces and Fans
The soils in this group formed in very deep alluvium and wind-deposited sandy material
underlain by gravel or sand. These soils are mainly along the northwestern part of the area, near
the Blackfoot and Snake Rivers and the American Falls Reservoir. Elevation ranges from 4,350
to 4,700 feet. The mean annual precipitation is 9 to 11 inches, the mean annual soil temperature
is 47° to 53° F, and the frost-free season ranges from 100 to 120 days. Most of the irrigated
crops of the survey area are grown on the soils in this group. The soils are also used for pasture
42
and range. Three of the associations of the Fort Hall area are in this group. They make up about
14 percent of the survey area (USDA SCS et al. 1977).
Paniogue-Declo Association
Nearly level to moderately sloping loamy and silt loamy on alluvial fans and terraces
This association consists of well-drained soils on alluvial fans and terraces along the Blackfoot
and Snake Rivers. These soils formed in mixed alluvium. Vegetation is mostly bunchgrasses
and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,400 to 4,700 feet. This association makes up about 8
percent of the survey area. It is about 45 percent Paniogue soils and 40 percent Declo soils.
Paniogue soils are nearly level to moderately sloping. They have a surface layer of grayish-
brown and light brownish-gray loam 7 inches thick. Declo soils are nearly level to gently
sloping and undulating. They have a surface layer of grayishbrown loam 5 inches thick. This
association is used for irrigated crops (USDA SCS et al. 1977).
Paniogue-Broncho Association
Nearly level to moderately steep loamy and gravelly loamy on alluvial fans and terraces
This association consists of well-drained and somewhat excessively drained soils on alluvial fans
and terraces near the mouth of the Portneuf River. These soils formed in alluvium underlain by
gravel at a depth of 10 to 40 inches. Vegetation is grasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from
4,350 to 4,700 feet. This association makes up about 1 percent of the survey area. It is about 50
percent Paniogue soils and 25 percent Broncho soils. Paniogue soils are nearly level to
moderately sloping and are on alluvial fans and terraces. They have a surface layer of grayish-
brown and light brownish-gray loam 7 inches thick. The nearly level to gently sloping Broncho
soils are on ridgetops, and the moderately sloping to moderately steep Broncho soils are on
breaks of alluvial fans and terraces. They have a surface layer of light brownish-gray gravelly
loam 6 inches thick. This association is used for irrigated crops and for grazing (USDA SCS et
al. 1977).
Tindahay-Escalante Association
Nearly level to strongly sloping loamy coarse sands and sandy loamy on alluvial fans and
terraces
This association consists of well-drained and somewhat excessively drained soils on alluvial fans
and terraces near the mouths of the Bannock Creek and the Portneuf River and in an area north
of Ross Fork Creek. The soils formed in sandy alluvium and eolian sand. Vegetation is
bunchgrasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,400 to 4,700 feet. This association makes up
about 5 percent of the survey area. It is about 55 percent Tindahay soils and 20 percent
Escalante soils. Tindahay soils are on sandy terraces of alluvial and eolian deposits. They have
a surface layer of grayishbrown loamy coarse sand 2 inches thick underlain by pale-brown,
brown, light brownish-gray, and light-gray stratified sandy loam or sand to a depth of 60 inches.
Escalante soils are on alluvial terraces. They have a surface layer of grayish-brown sandy loam
2 inches thick underlain by stratified light brownish-gray sandy loam and fine sandy loam to a
depth of 60 inches. This association is used for irrigated crops, dryfarmed pasture, and range
(USDA SCS et al. 1977).
3.8.2.3. Nearly Level to Very Steep Wind-Deposited Soils on Low Plateaus

The soils in this group formed in very deep eolian sand on low plateaus. These soils are
northeast of the community of Fort Hall. Elevation ranges from 4,400 to 5,000 feet. The mean
annual precipitation is 9 to 11 inches, the mean annual soil temperature is 50° to 54° F, and the
43
frost-free season ranges from 100 to 120 days. The soils are used mainly for grazing. One of the
associations of the Fort Hall Area is in this group. It makes up 8 percent of the survey area
Quincy-Feltham Association
Nearly level to gently sloping sands and loamy sands on low plateaus
This association consists of well-drained and excessively drained soils on uplands northeast of
the community of Fort Hall. These soils formed in sandy eolian deposits. Vegetation is sparse
grasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,400 to 5,000 feet. This association makes up about
8 percent of the survey area. It is about 60 percent Quincy soils and 20 percent Feltham soils.
Quincy soils are mainly on low plateaus. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown sand
about 3 inches thick. This layer is underlain by stratified, dark grayish-brown, grayish-brown,
and light-gray sand and coarse sand to a depth of 60 inches. Feltham soils are on wind-worked
sandy terraces and uplands. They have a surface layer of brown loamy sand 4 inches thick
underlain by brown loamy sand and sandy loam to a depth of 32 inches and light-gray and pale-
brown loam to a depth of 60 inches. This association is used for grazing (USDA SCS et al.
1977).
3.8.2.4. Nearly Level to Very Steep Soils on High Fans and Low Dissected Plateaus
The soils in this group formed in loess on high alluvial fans and low dissected plateaus. Large
areas of these soils are in the vicinity of Bannock Creek and on the lower terraces and foot hills
in the eastern part of the area. Elevation ranges from 4,300 to 6,500 feet. The mean annual
precipitation is 8 to 17 inches, the mean annual soil temperature is 42° to 52° F, and the frost-
free season ranges from 75 to 120 days. The soils are used mainly for grazing, but some
dryfarmed small grain and irrigated crops are grown. Three of the associations of the Fort Hall
Area are in this group. They make up about 45 percent of the survey area (USDA SCS et al.
1977).
Pocatello- Wheeler-Portneuf Association
Nearly level to very steep silt loamy on loess-mantled basalt plains and dissected low plateaus
This association consists of well-drained silty soils at lower elevations in the major valleys of the
survey area. These soils formed in loess and contain carbonates except for a few inches near the
surface. Vegetation is mainly bunchgrasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,500 to 5,400
feet. This association makes up about 19 percent of the survey area. It is about 40 percent
Pocatello soils, 20 percent Wheeler soils, and 15 percent Portneuf soils. Pocatello soils are on
high fans and dissected, loess-mantled plateaus. They have a surface layer of light brownish-
gray silt loam 4 inches thick underlain by light brownish-gray, pale-brown, and light-gray silt
loam to a depth of 60 inches. Wheeler soils are on south-facing side slopes of dissected plateaus.
They have a surface layer of light brownish-gray silt loam 3 inches thick underlain by light
brownish-gray and very pale brown silt loam to a depth of 60 inches. Portneuf soils are on loess-
mantled basalt plains and low benches. They have a surface layer of light brownish-gray silt
loam 5 inches thick underlain by a light brownish-gray silt loam 10 inches thick. This
association is used for irrigated crops and for grazing (USDA SCS et al. 1977).
Neeley-Rexburg Association
Nearly level to steep silt loamy on dissected loess-mantled plateaus
This association consists of well-drained silty soils on loess-mantled high fans and dissected
plateaus along Bannock Creek and east of Blackfoot and Fort Hall. These soils formed in loess
44
and have an accumulation of carbonates between depths of 10 and 35 inches. Vegetation is

grasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,900 to 6,200 feet. The association makes up 24
percent of the survey area. It is about 45 percent Neeley soils and 30 percent Rexburg soils.
Neeley soils are at lower elevations on south-facing side slopes. They have a surface layer of
grayish-brown and brown silt loam 7 inches thick. Rexburg soils are on north-facing side slopes
at lower elevations and on ridgetops and south-facing side slopes at higher elevations. They
have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown silt loam 12 inches thick. Most of this association is
used for grazing, but the Rexburg soils are well suited to dryfarmed winter wheat (USDA SCS et
al. 1977).
Lanoak Association
Nearly level to strongly sloping silt loams on loess-mantled mountain foot slopes
This association consists of well-drained silty soils at higher elevations at the base of mountains.
One area is north of Bannock Peak in the southwest corner of the survey area, and the other areas
are on uplands in the eastern part of the area. These soils formed in loess and have carbonates
below a depth of 35 to 55 inches. Vegetation is mostly bunchgrasses and shrubs. Elevation
ranges from 5,000 to 6,500 feet. This association makes up about 2 percent of the survey area.
It is about 70 percent Lanoak soils. Lanoak soils are at the base of mountains. They have a
surface layer of dark grayish-brown silt loam 22 inches thick. This association is used for
grazing or for dryfarmed crops (USDA SCS et al. 1977).
3.8.2.5. Nearly Level to Steep Soils on Uplands and Mountain Foot Slopes
The soils in this group formed in shallow to very deep loess and residuum from sedimentary
rocks on benches, uplands, and mountain foot slopes. They are on uplands east of Bannock
Creek and in the vicinity of Higham Peak, northeast of the community of Fort Hall. Elevation
ranges from 4,900 to 8,500 feet. The mean annual precipitation is 11 to 20 inches, the mean
annual soil temperature is 35° to 50° F, and the frost-free season ranges from 30 to 110 days.
The soils are used mainly for grazing, but some areas are dryfarmed. Two of the associations of
the Fort Hall Area are in this group. They make up about 9 percent of the survey area (USDA
SCS et al. 1977).
Neeley-Hondoho Association
Nearly level to steep silt loams and very cobbly loams on loess-mantled benches and uplands
This association consists of well-drained soils on uplands east of Bannock Creek and southeast
of the community of Fort Hall. Neeley soils formed in loess, and Hondoho soils formed in loess
and residuum from quartzite. Vegetation is bunchgrasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from
4,900 to 6,500 feet. This association makes up about 3 percent of the survey area. It is about 40
percent Neeley soils and 30 percent Hondoho soils. Neeley soils are at lower elevations. They
have a surface layer of grayish-brown and brown silt loam about 7 inches thick. Hondoho soils
are at higher elevations. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown and grayishbrown very
cobbly loam 12 inches thick. Hondoho soils and small areas of Neeley soils are used for grazing.
Larger areas of Neeley soils are used for dryfarmed grain (USDA SCS et al. 1977).
Nagitsy-Nielsen-Lanoak Association
Nearly level to steep gravelly, stony, and rocky loams and silt loams on uplands and mountain
foot slopes
This association consists of well-drained soils that are mainly stony, gravelly, and rocky. These
soils are in one large area in the vicinity of Higham Peak in the northeastern part of the survey
45
area. The soils formed mainly in residuum and colluvium from quartzite and sandstone and
some loess. Vegetation is dominantly bunchgrasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 5,000 to
8,500 feet. The mean annual precipitation is 15 to 20 inches, the mean annual soil temperature is
35° to 47° F, and the frost-free season ranges from 30 to 95 days. This association makes up
about 6 percent of the survey area. It is about 30 percent Nagitsy soils, 20 percent Nielsen soils,
and 15 percent Lanoak soils. Nagitsy soils formed in residuum and colluvium from quartzite and
sandstone. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown gravelly loam 23 inches thick.
Nielsen soils formed in colluvium and residuum from sandstone and quartzite. They have a
surface layer of dark grayish-brown extremely stony loam 9 inches thick. Lanoak soils formed
in loess. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown silt loam 22 inches thick. This
association is used mainly for grazing (USDA SCS et al. 1977).
3.8.2.6. Moderately Sloping to Very Steep Soils on Mountains

The soils in this group formed in shallow to very deep residuum and colluvium from sedimentary
rocks and some surficial loess. These soils are in most mountainous areas in the southern,
western, and eastern parts of the area. Elevations range from 4,800 to 8,500 feet. The mean
annual precipitation is 11 to 25 inches, the mean annual soil temperature is 35° to 47° F, and the
frost-free season ranges from 30 to 110 days. The soils are used for grazing, wildlife, recreation,
and watershed. Two of the associations of the Fort Hall area are in this group. They make up
about 15 percent of the survey area (USDA SCS et al. 1977).
Wahtigup-Highams-Hymas Association
Moderately sloping to very steep gravelly to extremely stony loams on mountains
This association consists of well-drained and excessively drained soils in mountainous areas of
the southern and eastern part of the survey area. These soils formed mainly in colluvium and
residuum from limestone. Vegetation is mainly bunchgrasses and shrubs with small areas of
aspen and Douglas-fir on northfacing slopes. Elevation ranges from 4,800 to 8,000 feet. This
association makes up about 9 percent of the survey area. It is about 30 percent Wahtigup soils,
30 percent Highams soils, and 15 percent Hymas soils. Wahtigup soils formed in colluvium and
local alluvium weathered from limestone and some loess. They have a surface layer of grayish-
brown gravelly loam 8 inches thick. Highams soils formed in residuum weathered from
limestone. They have a surface layer of light brownish gray very gravelly loam 9 inches thick.
Hymas soils formed in residuum or colluvium from limestone. They have a surface layer of
grayish-brown extremely stony loam 9 inches thick. This association is used for grazing and
wildlife (USDA SCS et al. 1977).
Moohoo-Nagitsy-Dranyon Association
Strongly sloping to steep silt loams, gravelly silt loams, gravelly loams, and stony loams on
mountains
This association consists of well-drained soils in mountainous areas in the vicinity of Mount
Putnam and Bannock Peak. These soils formed in residuum weathered from sedimentary rocks
and some admixture of loess. Vegetation is bunchgrasses and shrubs on south-facing slopes and
Douglas-fir, aspen, lodgepole pine, pinegrass, snowberry, and Idaho fescue on northfacing
slopes. Elevation ranges from 6,000 to 8,500 feet. This association makes up about 6 percent of
the survey area. It is about 20 percent Moohoo soils, 20 percent Nagitsy soils, and 15 percent
Dranyon soils. Minor soils make up the remaining 45 percent. Moohoo soils are on north-facing
side slopes in mountainous areas in the vicinity of Mt. Putnam. They have a surface layer of
dark grayish-brown and brown gravelly silt loam about 11 inches thick. Nagitsy soils are on
46
south-facing side slopes. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown gravelly loam about
23 inches thick. Dranyon soils are on north-facing side slopes. They have a surface layer of
dark grayish-brown silt loam about 14 inches thick. Nielsen and Pavohroo soils each make up
about 10 percent of the association. This association is used for grazing and wildlife. Small
acreages of low-quality timber are in patchy, scattered stands, and economical logging is difficult
3.8.3. Water
Indian water rights stem from the aboriginal lands occupied by the various tribes. These unique
water rights were recognized by the United States Supreme Court in the Winters Decision
(Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 1908), which determined that Indians had reserved
rights to water flowing through, on, and bordering the Reservation. The Fort Hall Indian
Reservation is one of the most productive water resource areas in the West. The Reservation is
located entirely within the Upper Snake River Basin; consequently all surface water runoff
generated on the Reservation eventually drains to the Snake River. The Snake River Basin has
long provided substantial resources that sustain the diverse uses of the native Indian tribes
including the Shoshone-Bannocks. The significance of these uses is partially reflected in the
contemporary values associated with the many culturally sensitive species and geographic areas
within the Basin. Various land management practices, such as those associated with
hydroelectric projects, have contributed to loss of some crucial resources and reduced the
productive capabilities of many resource systems.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ guaranteed continuous use reserves the rights to utilize resources
within the region that encompass and include lands of the Snake River Basin. Subsequent to the
listing of various salmon and snail species under the Endangered Species Act and the initiation
of other conservation efforts in the Basin, the resource is being viewed more and more as a
valuable resource that contributes to the overall Pacific Northwest regional conservation
framework. The Fort Hall Business Council has recognized the contemporary importance of
these rights and resources by advocating certain resource protection and restoration programs
and by preserving a harvest opportunity on culturally significant resources necessary to fulfill
inherent, contemporary and traditional treaty rights. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes support
efforts to conserve, protect, and enhance natural and cultural resources within the Basin and have
established their policy to reemphasize previous policy statements and provide new direction
with regards to recently initiated Basin actions.
In the mid-1980s, the Tribes began negotiation of a major water rights agreement in the Snake
River Basin Adjudication to preserve and protect the Tribes’ reserved water rights. From 1986
to 1990, the Tribes entered into negotiations with the State of Idaho and United States to secure
water rights for the Reservation to ensure the Tribes had an established water right for
agricultural and other uses on the lands reserved by the Executive Order of 1867 and Fort
Bridger Treaty of 1868. In 1990, the Tribes reached an agreement that quantified its water rights
within the State of Idaho. The “1990 Fort Hall Indian Water Rights Agreement” quantified the
Tribes’ water right for the Fort Hall Indian Reservation to waters in upper Snake River Basin in
Idaho. Also in 1990, the Tribes received Treatment as a State status from EPA, pursuant to
Sections 106 and 518 of the Clean Water Act, and were awarded a grant to build tribal capacity
in the area of water quality regulation.
47
In 1997 the Tribes adopted the Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Water Code which states, “Water
resources have cultural, spiritual, social, environmental and economic values that require
protection and must guide the appropriate use and management of all resources in the watershed
of the Reservation.” Subsequently, the Tribes’ “2007 Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Water Code”
was given secretarial approval in 2007. The Tribal Water Code provides for an orderly system
for the use, management, and protection of all tribal water rights now and for future uses. The
Water Code was enacted to protect Reservation water from over-appropriation, degradation,
contamination, exploitation, and any acts injurious to the quantity, quality, or integrity of the
water. The Water Code also ensures that residents of the Reservation have sufficient water for
cultural, domestic, agricultural, stock, instream, and other uses.
The Tribal Water Resources Department (TWRD), which provides technical expertise to a five
member Tribal Water Resources Commission (TWRC) appointed by the Fort Hall Business
Council, has the primary responsibility of permitting water uses on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation. The TWRC manages and implements the Water Code through water use permits
and licenses of activities or actions affecting Reservation water resources.
The TWRD’s Water Quality Program is responsible for establishing, reviewing, implementing,
and revising the Tribes’ water quality standards and administering the Tribes’ water quality
programs. The Water Quality Program has successfully addressed numerous matters relating to
water quality and continues to work on many Tribal activities on the Reservation.
Mission Statement of the Tribal Water Resources Department

The mission of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Water Resources Department and Commission is to
develop an integrated, cohesive management system that: coordinates water quantity and water
quality considerations in order to protect against surface and groundwater degradation; sets priorities
for water use that include: domestic, municipal, cultural, religious, agricultural, wildlife, commercial
and industrial purposes; provides for the fair administration of water rights on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation, for the present and future, in order to maintain or improve the quality and way of life for
all residents of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
The TWRD has identified several goals to achieve its mission: Promote and develop water
quality programs, which preserve tribal culture, protect public health and the environment;
Implement provisions the “1990 Fort Hall Indian Water Rights Agreement” and subsequent
“1994 Decree Determining Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Right to use water in the Upper Snake
River Basin;” Protect and Preserve Shoshone-Bannock Tribes water rights; Promote and develop
educational/outreach programs regarding Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Water Resource Activities
to Tribal members, Tribal government, and general public; Increase coordination with other
Tribal, State, and Federal agencies regarding water resource issues, and; Identify and seek
sources of financial support for water management and development.
The Reservation is bordered by the Snake and Blackfoot Rivers and is situated over the Snake
River Plain Aquifer, one of the richest groundwater sources in the world. The five main
hydrological units on the Reservation are the Blackfoot River Basin, the Ross Fork Basin, the
Portneuf River Basin, the Bannock Creek Basin, and the Snake River Plain. In addition, two
hydrologic features significant to the water resources of the Reservation are Sand Creek and
Grays Lake. Sand Creek drains a small area lying between the Snake and Blackfoot Rivers.
Grays Lake, for which the Tribes own diversion rights to stored water, drains into Clarks Cut
48
which feeds the Blackfoot River Watershed upstream from the Reservation. The Fort Hall
Bottoms, located along the northwestern edge of the Gibson Terrace near the northeastern end of
American Falls Reservoir, is an area of large groundwater discharge from the Snake River Plain
aquifer. Numerous springs exist in the Fort Hall Bottoms area representing one of the most
productive springs in the world. The springs are concentrated in two main areas on the
Reservation: above the mouth of Spring Creek and near the mouths of the Portneuf River and
Ross Fork Creek.
Of the five main hydrological units on the Reservation, all are significant sources of surface
water with the exception of the Snake River Plain, which does not contribute significantly to
surface runoff. Each of these units is briefly described below along with description of
groundwater and well resources.
3.8.3.1. Blackfoot River Basin

The Blackfoot River forms the Reservation’s northeastern boundary flowing generally east to
west to its confluence with the Snake River near the town of Blackfoot. Major tributaries
draining the Reservation to the Blackfoot River include (from east to west) Wood Creek, Garden
Creek and Lincoln Creek. The Blackfoot River is limited by hydrological modifications
including the Government Dam, the Equalizing Dam, and channel realignment. In 2004 the
Tribes’ Water Quality Program found that nutrient and sediment concentrations in the reaches
above the Equalizing Reservoir were above the targets set in the Blackfoot River TMDL and the
reaches below the Equalizing Reservoir were affected by dewatering and high temperature. In
2005 a Reservation-wide bioassessment study found that the majority of the streams in the
Blackfoot Watershed were in the bottom half of the streams assessed with Garden Creek having
the lowest biological score.
3.8.3.2. Ross Fork Basin

The Ross Fork Basin is located in the central part of the Reservation. The South Fork of the
basin originates near South Mount Putnam and flows generally south to north. Tributaries of the
South Fork located within the Reservation include Sawmill Creek, Thirty Day Creek, Barclay
Creek and Mill Creek. Flow in the North Fork originates on the slopes of North Mount Putnam
and flows generally east to west across the Reservation. The North and South Forks join to form
Ross Fork approximately 7 miles east of Fort Hall. From there, the Ross Fork flows west
through the town of Fort Hall and across the Snake River Plain, ultimately draining into the
American Falls Reservoir. The upper reaches of the Ross Fork Watershed contain high quality
waters. Scores from the 2005 bioassessment project from East Mill Creek, Thirty Day Creek,
and Big Springs were in the top five on the Reservation with Big Springs having the highest
score. East Mill and Thirty Day creeks contain the only populations of pure strains of
Yellowstone cutthroat trout on the Reservation. The watershed changes as it flows through the
northernmost foothills of the Pocatello Range where the system experiences significant
dewatering and are bisected by the Fort Hall Main Irrigation Canal. At this junction the majority
of the water that makes up Ross Fork Creek is primarily irrigation water from the canal. High
sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus loads are regularly observed at a water quality station
upstream from the confluence of Ross Fork and Clear creeks.
49
3.8.3.3. Portneuf River Basin

The Portneuf River, the headwaters of which are formed on the Reservation, drains the eastern
portion of the Reservation. Flow exits the Reservation through the Chesterfield Reservoir and
some smaller tributaries and flows south and west through Pocatello and reenters the Reservation
between the Fort Hall and Michaud irrigation units. The area above Pocatello will be referred to
as the Upper Portneuf River Basin (the remainder of the Portneuf River Basin will be discussed
with the Snake River Plain). The majority of flow in the upper basin that lies within the
Reservation boundaries drains to the Chesterfield Reservoir. Major tributaries to the Portneuf
River above the reservoir include Big Jimmy Creek, Ross Creek and Jeff Cabin Creek. Other
on-Reservation tributaries draining to the Portneuf below the reservoir are Little Toponce Creek
and North Fork Toponce Creek.
The Portneuf River Watershed is unique in the fact that the headwaters and the termination point
of the watershed lie within the Reservation, but the majority of the watershed lies off
Reservation. Grazing is the dominant land use in the upper reaches that lie within the
Reservation boundaries, resulting in stream substrate sedimentation and low macroinvertebrate
populations. However, the tributaries from the eastern side of Mount Putnam (Jeff Cabin, North
Fork of Toponce, and Little Toponce Creeks) are generally high in quality and scored well in the
2005 bioassessment project. As the Portneuf River flows back on to the Reservation it is
impacted by sediment and nutrients from agricultural, urban, and industrial sources.
Contaminants from industrial sources are leaching into the groundwater that flows to the
Portneuf River and is expressed through tributary springs and groundwater influx directly into
the River. The main contaminant in the groundwater is dissolved orthophosphorus, which is
causing excess aquatic growth in the river. This nuisance aquatic growth is negatively impacting
the aesthetics of the River and is resulting in depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations.
3.8.3.4. Bannock Creek Basin

The Bannock Creek Watershed drains the Bannock and Deep Creek mountain ranges in the
southwestern portion of the Reservation through Arbon Valley into the American Falls
Reservoir. Bannock Creek originates approximately 15 miles south of the Reservation boundary
and flows generally south to north. Major tributaries to Bannock Creek include West Fork,
Moonshine and Rattlesnake Creeks. Over 75 percent of the Moonshine Creek drainage area is
located within Reservation boundaries, but both West Fork and Rattlesnake Creek drain areas
that are located almost entirely off the Reservation (95 and 90 percent of the drainage areas,
respectively). Sampling conducted for the American Falls TMDL identified excess loads of
nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment within the watershed. These findings are attributed to
agricultural practices such as irrigated agriculture, dry land farming, and grazing. Samples taken
by the Tribes in the spring of 2003 revealed a total suspended solids concentration of 454 mg/L
at Bannock Creek and in excess of 730 mg/L at Rattlesnake Creek. The high total suspended
solid concentrations in these locations are attributed to off-Reservation dry land farming
occurring upstream as well as on-Reservation grazing practices.
3.8.3.5. Snake River Plain

The Snake River Plain is a broad geologic feature that extends from the Idaho-Wyoming border
into Oregon and occupies 178 mi2 of the northwestern portion of the Reservation. Together with
the adjacent foothills area, marking the transition between the Plain and Basin and Range
Province, this area comprises nearly one third of the Reservation area (270 mi2). The Snake
50
River, American Falls Reservoir, and the springs in the Fort Hall Bottoms comprise the Snake
River Plain Watershed. The Snake River itself bisects the Snake River Plain and forms the
Reservation’s northwestern boundary between the town of Blackfoot and American Falls
Reservoir. The water quality of the Snake River in the reach from Tilden Bridge to the
American Falls Reservoir is generally of high quality, with the exception of temperatures that
exceed water quality standards during the summer months. Water quality in American Falls
Reservoir is impaired by nitrogen and phosphorus, which cause nuisance algal blooms. High
nitrogen loading is a regional problem due primarily to agricultural fertilizers. Approximately
sixty percent of the phosphorus loading to the reservoir comes from the Portneuf River, which
provides less than 10 percent of the Reservoir’s water volume. The water quality of the springs
in the Fort Hall Bottoms is generally of high quality. Sampling of springs in the Fort Hall
Bottoms to assess nutrient and sediment loading to the Reservoir for the American Falls TMDL
has shown that the phosphorus and sediment concentrations are well below the TMDL
concentrations of 50ug/L and 35mg/L respectively.
3.8.3.6. Reservoirs
Successful agriculture on the Reservation – as well as the region – is dependent upon reliable
supplies of irrigation water. A system of reservoirs is used to collect snowmelt and precipitation,
and release storage water throughout the growing season for agricultural use. Excluding the
smaller irrigation units on the Reservation, which depend on the early season natural flows of
their respective waterways, surface waters utilized by the Reservation are diverted from the
Blackfoot, Portneuf, and Snake Rivers.
The Blackfoot River system contains two reservoirs of note: Blackfoot Reservoir and Grays
Lake. Blackfoot Reservoir is the main storage feature within the Blackfoot River Basin. The
BIA monitors the water level and resulting capacity of the Reservoir. Releases from the
reservoir are recorded by both the BIA and TWRD with gauges located just downstream of the
Reservoir. The BIA and TWRD began monitoring these locations in 1975 and 1999,
respectively.
Grays Lake is a National Wildlife Refuge administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and located outside the Blackfoot River Basin. Through water rights within this basin serves the
BIA Fort Hall Irrigation Project Flows from Grays Lake are transferred to Blackfoot Reservoir
through a trans-basin canal named Clark’s Cut. Diversions through Clark’s Cut can be
significant, unfortunately they usually occur as Blackfoot Reservoir is reaching capacity and
spilling water. The BIA monitors these releases with a gauge at Clark’s Cut-Meadow Creek.
The Portneuf River system contains one impoundment, Chesterfield Reservoir, which is located
in the upper reaches of the Portneuf River Basin on the southeast corner of the Reservation. The
Reservoir has been privately owned and operated since construction in 1911. Water levels and
reservoir discharges are controlled and monitored by the Portneuf Marsh Valley Irrigation
Company, serving agricultural entities in the upper reaches of the Portneuf River Basin. The
Tribes do not have rights to storage in the Chesterfield Reservoir.
The Upper Snake River Basin includes numerous reservoirs and impoundments including
Palisades and American Falls Reservoirs. The Tribes own storage rights in each reservoir and
utilize the water for irrigation and marketing purposes. The Upper Snake River Basin dams are
monitored and operated by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).
51
Water source development on the Reservation is managed by the BIA, Irrigation Division. The
division manages two major irrigation areas, Fort Hall and Michaud, which serve both Indian
and non-Indian water users. The Fort Hall Irrigation Project included construction of the Idaho
Canal and a reservoir on the Blackfoot River with an additional network of canals. The Fort Hall
Irrigation project was later extended to include the Michaud Unit. Water for the Michaud
division was authorized in American Falls and Palisades Reservoirs. In exchange for the stored
waters, the United States waived its rights to the water in the Fort Hall Bottoms.
Four other irrigable agricultural areas existed that were not included in the Fort Hall Irrigation
Project. These were the four minor units of Lincoln Creek, Ross Fork Creek, Bannock Creek,
and Little Indian. The Little Indian Unit subsequently was irrigated from and included in the
Fort Hall Irrigation Project because of its physical proximity to the Blackfoot River. The other
minor units derive their water supply from the major creeks of the same name and their
tributaries.
3.8.3.7. Groundwater
The Groundwater Protection Act was enacted in 2001 to prevent groundwater contamination and
destruction of high quality aquifer recharge areas in order to satisfy existing uses including, but
not limited to, drinking water, agricultural, industrial, and commercial water supplies. The Act
seeks to maintain the highest quality of groundwater and protect existing and future uses of
groundwater through the reduction or elimination of discharge of contaminants to the
Reservations’ groundwater. Pursuant to this Act, the Tribal Water Resources Director may issue
permits for discharge and use of groundwater sources on the Reservation. In 2002, the Well
Construction Standards Ordinance was enacted to establish minimum standards for the
construction of all wells on the Reservation to guard against waste and contamination of
groundwater resources. The Ordinance provides for regulation and licensing of water
contractors and operators and for regulation of well construction and abandonment.
The Reservation’s ground water resources mostly lie in the aquifers underlying the Snake River
Plain, a level area of land adjacent to the Snake River. Ground water also exists in the areas
surrounding the Snake River Plain, mostly in the valleys, but not to the same extent. The Snake
River Plain aquifer is recharged by runoff from the higher elevations of the Reservation, the
Snake and Blackfoot Rivers, and irrigation water. The Snake River Plain aquifers discharge a
significant amount of water through the various springs in the Fort Hall Bottoms, which flow
into the Snake River and American Falls Reservoir. Groundwater is currently the source of all
non-agricultural water uses.
Groundwater quality is a significant issue on the Reservation, with a carcinogenic chemical
plume contaminating the groundwater under much of the south-central part of the Reservation.
The contamination of ethylene dibromide (EDB) covers more than 50 mi2 in the south-central
part of the Reservation, near the town of Fort Hall. The contamination was discovered in 1994
as part of a routine water quality analysis on a private well. After the initial discovery, 530 wells
were surveyed. Of those, 134 had detectable levels of EDB and 110 had EDB levels exceeding
the federal government’s maximum contaminant level (MCL). A source of the contamination
remains unclear (BOR 2001). Presence of this carcinogen has resulted in the abandonment of
groundwater use in the impacted area, and a conveyance system has been constructed to supply
water from a groundwater source outside of the contaminated area. Those that do not have
52
access to the conveyance system will have to remain on groundwater with filter systems to treat
water.
Elevated nitrate/nitrite levels in the Reservation’s groundwater are also a concern. A survey of
60 wells in 1988 and 71 wells in 1989 found nitrate plus nitrite concentrations ranging from 1.2
milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 38 mg/L with a median concentration of 11 mg/L. The majority of
Nitrate contamination occurs in the unconsolidated aquifer of the Gibson Terrace. The MCL for
nitrate is 10 mg/L nitrate-notrogen and for nitrite is 1 mg/L nitrite-nitrogen. Possible sources of
nitrate contamination are fertilizers and human/animal wastes. A specific source for the
increased nitrate levels is not known. Nitrate’s water solubility results in a high potential to
contaminate groundwater and spread throughout an aquifer (BOR 2001).
3.9. Biological Resources

3.9.1. Vegetation
More than 70 percent of the Reservation’s land base is occupied by farmland, grassland, and
sagebrush used mainly for agriculture and grazing. Woodland vegetation types comprise the
remaining approximately 30 percent of the Reservation (Figure 10). Vegetation type refers to a
community’s predominant species, and is one indicator of species diversity. Five woodland
vegetation types have been categorized on the Reservation: Mountain Shrub, Aspen/Conifer,
Riparian, Juniper, and Cottonwood. The relatively small amount of conifer forest on the
Reservation is restricted to the rugged slopes of the Portneuf and Bannock Ranges. Aspen stands
occupy the lower slopes and moist sites, often at the grassland-forest interface. Juniper
woodlands occupy rocky ridges surrounded by grasslands and form open stands below the
elevational limits of Douglas-fir. Cottonwoods grow along major rivers and streams with the
most extensive stands along the Snake River in the Fort Hall Bottoms.
The woodland vegetation types present on the Reservation provide habitat for fish, wildlife, and
native plants that are utilized by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for food, traditional ceremonies,
clothing, and art and provide recreational opportunities to Tribal members and have aesthetic
values (Appendix B contains a list of vascular plants and fungi that occur within the Reservation
that are known to be of traditional/cultural importance to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes).
Therefore, the condition and health of the vegetation communities is of high importance to the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The BIA and Tribes are committed to a policy of ecosystem
management that maintains the health and resiliency of the vegetation on the Reservation, while
at the same time protecting the cultural, spiritual, and ecological functions and values of the land.
In line with this thinking the Tribes and BIA have developed the Woodlands Plan that provides
landscape scale management direction for the long-term sustainability of woodland resources.
The woodland vegetation types present on the Reservation are discussed below.
53
Figure 10. Distribution of Woodland Vegetation Types on the Reservation.
54
3.9.1.1. Mountain Shrub

The Mountain Shrub vegetation type is the largest vegetation type on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation occupying about 49,100 acres or 9 percent of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation
(Bannock Ecological 2007). This vegetation type occurs in a transition zone between the
sagebrush steppe and Aspen/Conifer vegetation types, and can almost always be found in areas
that naturally accumulate a snow pack, particularly from snow drifting. Elevation of this
vegetation type ranges between 6,000 to 8,500 feet, and the average annual precipitation rates
vary from 16-20 inches. The Mountain Shrub vegetation type is important for providing habitat
for wildlife, especially wintering big game. This vegetation type is also important for the
collection of berries and other vegetative products by Tribal members.
This vegetation type provides high quality browse, forage, cover and berry producing habitat.
Indicative species of this vegetation type are: maple, western serviceberry, chokecherry,
mountain mahogany, mountain snowberry, blue elderberry, and snowbrush ceanothus. Mountain
big sagebrush is often present. Mountain shrub communities occupy relatively moist sites at the
lower elevational limits of the forest communities on the Reservation. Exclusion of wildland fire
has allowed many of these communities to develop into late seral stages of ecological succession
and reduced the productivity potential of this vegetation from historical conditions.
3.9.1.2. Aspen/Conifer
The Aspen/Conifer vegetation type is the second largest woodland type on the Reservation
occupying 38,600 acres or 7 percent of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation (Bannock Ecological
2007). This vegetation type generally occurs above 5,000 feet on soils that retain a snow pack
into early summer. The Aspen/Conifer vegetation type provides important watershed protection
and wildlife habitat although a lack of wildland fire has lowered the productivity of this
vegetation type and decreased long-term watershed integrity. This vegetation type has been used
mainly for grazing, hunting, gathering, and spiritual purposes and is relied upon as the primary
source of fuel wood, post and poles, and other vegetation projects for Tribal members. Past
management activities have been largely limited to fire protection and firewood cutting of
diseased and insect-killed trees. Most firewood cutting has taken place in the Twitchell and Bear
Canyon areas of the Portneuf Range, in the drainage of the South Fork of Ross Fork Creek, and
in the timbered areas on the north slopes of the Pocatello Range. Some commercial logging
occurred in the late 1960s in the South Fork of Ross Creek but overall logging has been marginal
due to the relatively small areas of saleable timber and limited access.
Douglas-fir is the most common conifer tree species associated with this vegetation type. It
forms the lower timberline in both the Deep Creek and Portneuf Ranges and spans a broad
gradient from warm and dry to cold and moist environments. Douglas-fir does best on cool
aspects at intermediate elevations ranging from 6,000 to 8,200 feet. Above 8,200 feet, the cold,
moist subalpine fir type replaces the Douglas-fir type. At its warm, dry extreme (below 6,000
feet), Douglas-fir merges with foothill sagebrush/shrub communities. Douglas-fir forms dense
stands on north and east slopes and open stands of widely scattered poorly formed trees on south
and west slopes. On cooler aspects, varying amounts of aspen, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine
are present. Douglas-fir stands on the Reservation, sustained substantial mortality from a region-
wide infestation of Douglas-fir beetles in the early 1990s. On Bannock Peak the outbreak was
extensive; a number of stands were decimated leaving patches of dead timber. More localized
damage occurred in the Mount Putnam area and along the South Fork of Ross Fork Creek (Elliott
55
and Sawyer 2002). As a result of this insect-caused mortality in combination with overstocked
conditions, high-fuel loadings, and growth on steep slopes, most Douglas-fir stands are highly
susceptible to high-intensity, stand-replacing fire.
Another conifer present in this vegetation type is subalpine fir, which is found at elevations
ranging from 6,500 to 8,500 feet. Subalpine fir stands are widespread in the Portneuf Range on
all exposures above 7,500 feet. This species also occurs at lower elevations where it is restricted
to moist micro-sites, intermixed with Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and aspen. Subalpine fir
forms open, park-like stands without Douglas-fir where it grows near timberline. In the Deep
Creek Range, subalpine fir is found on steep slopes near timberline and in moist pockets on cool
aspects. Signs of intermittent spruce budworm damage are apparent in some subalpine fir stands.
Top kill and branch dieback are visible in many of the older stands from an infestation in the late
1980s (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Other conifers found within this vegetation type include
lodgepole pine, limber pine, and Rocky Mountain juniper. Lodgepole pine is a minor forest type
on the Reservation that is usually found intermixed with Douglas-fir and subalpine fir on moist,
cool, mid-elevation exposures between 6,000 and 7,000 feet.
Quaking aspen is widespread on the Reservation, with stands ranging in size from small isolated
patches that are less than 1 acre to broad expanses of pure stands. Aspen are found at elevations
ranging from 5,200 to 8,500 feet. At the lower elevations, aspen occur as stringers confined to
moist draws, surrounded by sagebrush/shrub communities. At intermediate elevations, aspen
form pure stands at the lower margins of the Douglas-fir type. At higher elevations, aspen grow
intermixed with subalpine fir. The most extensive aspen stands on the Reservation are located in
the upper Ross Fork and Little Toponce drainages. These stands form a broad band extending
along the lower mountain slopes. In the Deep Creek Range, aspen is less common and restricted
to cool, moist draws and toe slopes. North of Garden Peak, stunted aspen stringers are
intermingled with sagebrush/shrub communities (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Aspen is utilized by
many species of wildlife as well as livestock. These woodlands are essential for big game
calving/fawning habitat, biological diversity, and watershed maintenance.
Without fire, logging, or other disturbance, aspen do not effectively reproduce and are replaced
by conifer. Due to years of fire suppression, conifer species have encroached within pure aspen
stands to varying degrees resulting in an increased dominance of conifer and a reduction in the
size and density of aspen stands on the Reservation. As aspen stands mature and decline in
growth and vigor, conifers begin to dominate the sites. Less than 5 percent of the aspen stands
on the Reservation are less than 30 years old. High utilization rates of aspen by livestock have
also been preventing the regeneration of aspen and contributing to a loss in age-class diversity.
Most of the forest types on the Reservation are developing mid- to late-seral stages of ecological
succession, with large amounts of standing and down fuels, primarily because many stands have
not burned in recent years. Prior to aggressive fire suppression activities, wildfires of variable
intensity and severity periodically occurred. Under current conditions, high-fuel conditions have
developed as a result of fire suppression and infestations of Douglas-fir beetles in many of the
Douglas-fir dominated forest types. Instead of having low- to moderate-intensity fires every 30
to 60 years, the risk of high-intensity, catastrophic fire has greatly increased for most of the
Douglas-fir forest. These types of stand replacing fires are generally undesirable because they
can adversely affect soils, water quality, wildlife, fisheries, and other resources.
56
3.9.1.3. Riparian
Riparian areas are areas of land directly influenced by permanent water and exhibit vegetation or
physical characteristics that reflect that permanent surface or subsurface water influence.
Typical riparian areas include lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with rivers, streams,
springs, lakes and reservoirs. Riparian vegetation occupies about 32,400 acres or 6 percent of
the Reservation, mostly in the Fort Hall Bottoms (Bannock Ecological 2007). This vegetation
type is likely the most important on the Reservation because it maintains numerous ecological
functions as well as provides many human uses. Riparian areas are highly important for
harvesting plants for cultural use; birch trees, willows, and other woodland species are
commonly collected for building ceremonial structures and other purposes. Many riparian plant
species are also known to be collected for food as well as for medicinal and religious purposes.
Native plant communities in riparian areas are important for maintaining Special Status Species
habitat and native fish and wildlife that the Tribes rely upon. Riparian areas provide high quality
forage for livestock and buffalo and a large majority of this vegetation type is permitted for
grazing and haying operations or as pasture. Recreational activities such as fishing, hunting,
swimming, and picnicking are also popular in riparian areas.
Healthy riparian areas dissipate energy, control erosion, maintain water quality, moderate stream
temperatures, and provide habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species. Most riparian areas on the
Fort Hall Indian Reservation however have been altered or degraded to some extent from human
activities, livestock and buffalo grazing, and noxious/invasive weed invasion, resulting in a
decrease in the positive benefits afforded by healthy systems. Ground disturbance and weed
spread in these areas has led to soil compaction, increased sedimentation, elimination of
desirable woody tree and shrub species, and less productive forage and wildlife habitat. Riparian
communities of sandbar willow, yellow willow, red-osier dogwood and other shrubs and forbs
have been affected by heavy grazing and reduced intensity and frequency of flood flows
(Sampson et al. 2001). Riparian areas have decreased and undesirable species have increased as
a result of dewatering due to range improvements or irrigation diversions. Willows have
matured and become decadent in some areas and management is needed for regeneration and to
improve the understory diversity of other shrubs and herbaceous vegetation (Elliott and Sawyer
2002). Some riparian areas on the Reservation are infested with noxious/invasive weeds and
excessively grazed by livestock and buffalo. Balancing human use to sustain riparian area
function is needed to maintain natural ecological processes, fish and wildlife habitat, and water
quality.
Wetlands are characterized by streamside and wetland vegetation including cottonwoods,
willows, rush, and sedges. The Fort Hall Bottoms and American Falls Reservoir comprise a
wetland complex of approximately 50,000 acres. Threats to the wetlands complex include
noxious weeds, erosion along stream banks from grazing, and erosion along Snake River from
Reservoir operations.
3.9.1.4. Juniper
The Juniper vegetation type currently occupies about 25,300 acres or 5 percent of the
Reservation - approximately 11,700 acres of this vegetation type has burned within the last 7
years (Bannock Ecological 2007). Woodlands dominated by Utah juniper occupy rocky ridges
and rangelands below the elevational zone of Douglas-fir and aspen communities, typically
between 4,500 feet to 6,000 feet on a wide variety of soils within the 10- to 15- inch precipitation
57
zone. (Rocky Mountain juniper also occurs on the Reservation as a minor component of the
Aspen/Conifer vegetation type and is not included in the Juniper vegetation type). These
relatively open juniper woodland communities are interspersed with sagebrush and grassland
communities. Dominant understory species are mostly grasses and forbs adapted to the
relatively dry site conditions of this type (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Junipers are of high
importance to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for spirituality and traditional ceremonies as well as
for fuel wood, post and poles, and other biomass products, and provide important habitat for big
game during the winter.
Old-growth (naturally occurring) juniper is normally found in fire-safe habitats on dry, stony
outcrops along open ridges. Associated plant species often found on the naturally occurring
juniper sites include black sagebrush, Indian ricegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, needle-and-thread,
prickly phlox, cryptantha, woolypod milkvetch, curlleaf mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and
big sagebrush. Juniper encroachment into the sagebrush steppe has been largely controlled by
high fire frequency in the sagebrush steppe and juniper vegetation types. There is a large mature
juniper stand in the Fort Hall Bottoms area that supports a high density of cultural resources.
This stand is located almost entirely within the southern buffalo pasture and is impacted by
grazing pressures.
3.9.1.5. Cottonwood
The Cottonwood vegetation type occupies about 3,600 acres or 1 percent of the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation (Bannock Ecological 2007). This vegetation type is primarily found below 4,500
feet and is most extensive along the Snake River in the Fort Hall Bottoms and along other
perennial streams. Cottonwood communities occupy riparian zones of rivers and streams that
experience periodic over-bank flooding. Plant communities present in riparian zones are “pulse-
stabilized” systems maintained in continual ecological transitions through the pulse of period
flooding. Scouring by floodwaters and deposition of water-borne sediment creates optimum
habitat for cottonwood and willow species, which germinate almost exclusively on recently
deposited, fully exposed alluvium (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Cottonwood regeneration has
decreased on the Reservation due to reductions in frequency and magnitude of floods, invasion
by noxious weeds and invasive species (e.g., reed canarygrass, musk thistle, cheatgrass, Canada
thistle), and heavy livestock use in some areas (BOR 2001). Associated trees and shrubs include
lemonade sumac, willow, Rocky Mountain juniper, water birch, red-osier dogwood, western
serviceberry, and black hawthorn. Cottonwoods are highly important for bank stabilization,
wildlife habitat, and cultural ceremonies of the Tribes.
3.9.1.6. Special Status Plant Species

Special Status Species include those species officially listed, proposed for listing, or candidates
for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as well
as species of concern on the Reservation – those that may also have limited range or may be at
risk in the State of Idaho or on the Reservation (although the state sensitive designation does not
apply on the Reservation). Currently there is one ESA-listed threatened plant species, one plant
species of concern known to occur, and three plant species of concern suspected to occur on the
Reservation (Table 3). Habitat for all of these plants consists of riparian vegetation. A thorough
inventory for special status plant species has not been conducted on the Reservation and there is
limited information available on the status of these species on the Reservation. This type of
58
inventory would contribute to identifying the range, threats and ecology of Ute ladies’-tresses
and other special status plant species on the Reservation.
Table 3. Special Status Plant Species and Their Potential to Occur on the Reservation.
Status and Occurrence on Fort Hall
Species
Indian Reservation
Ute ladies’-tresses ESA-listed threatened; Known to occur in the
(Spiranthes diluvialis) Fort Hall Bottoms
Joe-Pye weed Species of concern; Known to occur in the Fort
(Eupatoriadelphus maculatus var. bruneri) Hall Bottoms
Meadow milkvetch Species of concern; Suspected to occur in the
(Astragalus diversifolius) Fort Hall Bottoms
Idaho sedge Species of concern; Suspected to occur along
(Carex idahoa) the upper Portneuf River and similar areas
Giant helleborine Species of concern; Suspected to occur in the
(Epipactis gigantea) Fort Hall Bottoms
Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) was petitioned for delisting from the ESA in 2004
based upon new information that indicates in part that the population size and distribution is
much larger than known at the time of listing. This species was originally thought to be limited
to undisturbed riparian habitats, but is now known to occur in agricultural lands and managed
riparian systems where frequent human-influence disturbance events simulate natural early to
mid seral conditions. Currently, the FWS has not issued a ruling on the findings to determine if
listing is still warranted. This species is found in the lowlands of the Fort Hall Bottoms, and
generally occupy the semi-moist transition area (ecotone) between saturated soils and dry
uplands. These areas are usually dominated by creeping bentgrass, which is also the primary
indicator species of potential habitat. Other associated species of Ute ladies’-tresses on the Fort
Hall Bottoms includes: beaked spikerush, basin wildrye, Nuttall’s sunflower, narrowleaf
cottonwood, white panicle aster, yellow sweetclover, narrowleaf willow, redosier dogwood,
Wood’s rose, American licorice, common plantain, and lesser Indian paintbrush (Davis 2007).
3.9.1.7. Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds

Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species, 1999, directs federal agencies to prevent the
introduction of invasive species and provide for their control, and to minimize the economic,
ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. Under this executive order,
federal agencies cannot authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or
promote the introduction or spread of invasive species, unless all reasonable measures to
minimize risk of harm have been analyzed and considered. Noxious weeds are non-native
species that invade areas of native vegetation and replace native species. They are aggressive
invaders, particularly in disturbed areas, and decrease habitat value for wildlife and agricultural
productivity. Forested areas on the Reservation contain Canada thistle, black henbane, spotted
knapweed, and hound’s tongue. Musk thistle, Scotch thistle, and Canada thistle are common
noxious weeds found in the Fort Hall Bottoms.
3.9.2. Wildlife and Fisheries
Article IV of the Fort Bridger Treaty provides, “The Indians herein named agree…they will
make said Reservations their permanent home, and they will make no permanent settlement
elsewhere; but they shall have the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the United States so
59
long as game may be found thereon, and so long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians
on the borders of the hunting districts.”
Because of the scope of the Fort Bridger Treaty the reach of the Tribes’ natural resources
programs extends beyond Reservation boundaries throughout much of the Shoshone and
Bannock peoples’ aboriginal territory. To protect their treaty rights, the Tribes have followed a
strategy of encouraging members to hunt wildlife and salmon throughout the upper Snake River
Basin. Native plants and animals are important elements of the ecosystem on the Reservation.
Sustainable, naturally reproducing populations of native wildlife that support both subsistence
and limited sport harvest are attained by maintaining the functions and attributes of healthy
portions of the ecosystem, and working with modified aspects of the ecosystem to either restore
lost ecological components or replace them with other components that produce desirable
outputs.
Mission of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fish & Wildlife Department

Protect, restore, and enhance, fish and wildlife related resources in accordance with the Tribes’ unique
interests and vested rights in such resources and their habitats, including the inherent, aboriginal and
treaty protected rights of Tribes members to fair process and the priority rights to harvest pursuant to
the Fort Bridger Treaty of July 3, 1868.
3.9.2.1. Wildlife
There are two main programs that manage wildlife on the Reservation – the wildlife program and
the big game program. The goals of the wildlife program are to protect, manage, and enhance
the wildlife resources and wildlife habitat on the Reservation and to protect the Tribes treaty
rights off of the Reservation while the big game program is set up to provide BMPs to promote
and enhance wildlife on the Reservation as well as to protect off-Reservation treaty rights. The
wildlife resources on the Reservation include all of the species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and
amphibians present as well as the habitat used by these species. The wildlife program is
responsible for the management of all wildlife species – including Special Status Species – on
the Reservation except big game animals, which are managed under the big game program. The
big game program conducts population surveys on selected species on an annual basis, develops
hunting regulations, monitors harvest, and resolves conflicts between wildlife and humans. To
facilitate the description of existing wildlife on the Reservation, species are discussed in terms of
their association with vegetation cover types and their cultural significance to the Tribes
(subsistence, ceremonial use, etc.). A list of the wildlife species that are known to inhabit the
Reservation, including culturally significant species, are listed in Appendix B.
Low- and mid-elevation shrub sites are characterized as sagebrush steppe. Plants in these areas
include Wyoming big sagebrush, basin big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, mountain-
mahogany, and bitterbrush, with a native grass and forb understory. These species are highly
desirable browse species for big game, especially deer. Mountain-mahogany is also important
for winter range, as it provides cover. Culturally significant wildlife species that are found in
low and mid-elevation shrub sites include black-tailed jackrabbit, white-tailed jackrabbit, pygmy
rabbit, mountain cottontail, Uinta ground squirrel, yellow-bellied marmot, mule deer, elk,
pronghorn antelope, sharp-tailed grouse, and greater sage-grouse. Threats to this habitat type
include fire, loss of habitat to agriculture and housing projects, and overgrazing.
60
Forests on the Reservation provide cover, forage, water, and reproductive sites for a diversity of
mammals, reptiles, birds, and amphibians. Forest sites are characterized by conifers including
Douglas fir, subalpine fir and lodgepole pine. Wildlife associated with these vegetation types
include mule deer, elk, moose, black bear, mountain lion, ruffed grouse, blue grouse, boreal toad,
and snowshoe hare. Threats to forest habitat on the Reservation include fire, insects, disease,
age, and logging.
Woodland cover types consist of aspen, aspen/conifer mix, mountain shrub, juniper, riparian, and
cottonwood species. Wildlife associated with this large variety of vegetation include mule deer,
whitetail deer, elk, moose, ruffed grouse, bald eagle, white tailed jackrabbit, and beaver. Aspen
is utilized by many species of wildlife – as well as livestock – and is essential for big game
calving/fawning habitat, biological diversity, and watershed maintenance. Juniper woodlands
provide important habitat for big game during the winter. Mature juniper communities have also
been reported to contain a high number and variety of bird species and are considered to be one
of the highest proportions of obligate or semi-obligate bird species among forest types in the
West (Paulin et al. 1999, Gillihan 2006). Threats to woodland habitat include disruption of the
natural fire regime, changes in water flow cycles, age, insects, overgrazing, and increased
development. In addition a large majority of the juniper vegetation type has burned across the
Reservation landscape within the last 10 years resulting in a loss of wildlife habitat.
Wetlands are characterized by streamside and wetland vegetation including cottonwoods,
willows, sedges, and rush. The Fort Hall Bottoms and American Falls Reservoir comprise a
wetland complex of approximately 50,000 acres and provide habitat for thousands of shorebirds.
This complex is an important migration corridor for waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway and the
American Falls Reservoir is part of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. The
wetland complex is used by more than 150 different bird species. Large populations of colonial
nesting birds (e.g., herons, egrets) and neotropical song birds use the area and thousands of
ducks, geese, and swans fly down the Snake River in the fall and remain in the Fort Hall Bottoms
and American Falls Reservoir for the winter. Large spring fed creeks and spring holes in the
bottoms provide open water for Canada geese, mallards, widgeon, pintails, and trumpeter swans
throughout the winter. In the spring and summer, the Bottoms provides excellent breeding
habitat for mallards, cinnamon teal, gadwalls, lesser, and redheads. The streams, lateral springs,
and surrounding marshlands are also heavily used by withering and nesting waterfowl,
shorebirds, and raptors. Bald Eagles and trumpeter swans winter, nest, and feed on the Bottoms.
The Tribes sell waterfowl and pheasant hunting permits for the wetland complex area. Hunting
is critical to the overall health of waterfowl because it prevents “short stopping” that leads to
overpopulation in open water areas and leads to the spread of diseases (avian cholera).
Beginning in 1987, the Tribes became involved in trumpeter swan management projects with the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The transplanting and monitoring projects were designed to
reestablish wintering populations along the Snake River migration corridor. In 1987, there were
11 trumpeter swans wintering in the Fort Hall Bottoms and American Falls Reservoir; this
number had increased to 800 by 2006. The wetland complex is also used by other wetland
dependent wildlife including leopard frog, otter, mink, muskrat, beaver, pronghorn antelope,
mule deer, and whitetail deer. Threats to the wetland complex include noxious weeds, erosion
along stream banks from grazing, and erosion along the Snake River from reservoir operations.
Other wildlife species on the Reservation include common predatory species such as cougar,
black bear, bobcat, and coyotes; as well as small mammals such as mice, voles, pocket gophers,
61
yellow-bellied marmots, raccoons, ground squirrels, beavers, porcupines, weasels, snowshoe

hare, jackrabbits, and several bat species. Suitable nesting habitat is present for raptors including
the red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, goshawk, golden eagle, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk,
American kestrel, great gray owl, flammulated owl, great horned owl, saw whet owl, and raven.
There are many song birds and migratory bird species that are known to occur throughout the
Reservation in habitats types such as sagebrush steppe, forested areas, and agricultural lands.
Blue grouse and ruffed grouse are present in forest communities on slopes and ridges and in
riparian areas. Riparian habitat is also present on the Reservation for species like spotted frogs,
tiger salamanders, boreal chorus frogs, western toad, leopard frog, rubber boa, and garter snakes.
The Tribes is making a concerted effort to reintroduce beaver in many of the riparian areas
scattered throughout the Reservation (BIA 2002).
Special Status Animal Species
Special Status Species includes those species officially listed, proposed for listing, or candidates
for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as well
as species of concern on the Reservation – those that may also have limited range or may be at
risk in the State of Idaho or on the Reservation (although the state sensitive designation does not
apply on the Reservation). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified two federally listed
animal species (Canada lynx and Utah valvata snail) and one candidate species (yellow-billed
cuckoo) that may occur within the counties surrounding the Reservation. Little information
exists that can be used to characterize the occurrence of most of these species within the
Reservation; a brief discussion of each of these species is presented below.
A proposed rule to list the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) as threatened under the ESA was
published July 8, 1998 (Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 130) and the lynx was listed as threatened
on March 24, 2000. Lynx occur throughout the northern Rocky Mountains of Montana and
Idaho, primarily in Douglas fir, spruce-fir, and fir-hemlock forests (Ruediger et al. 2000). In
western Montana and northern Idaho, lynx habitat generally occurs at elevations above 4,000
feet. In southern Idaho, near the edge of their geographic range, lynx have been observed in
sagebrush steppe habitat and riparian habitats at the margins of conifer forest habitat (Lewis and
Wegner 1998). The status and distribution of lynx within the Reservation is largely unknown.
Lynx have not been documented on the Reservation; however the Lynx Conservation
Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger 2000) indicates that lynx occur in Idaho in the Salmon,
Upper Snake River, and Bear River watersheds. It is possible that an occasional lynx could
travel through portions of the Reservation, but it is unlikely that resident individuals occur.
The Utah valvata snail (Valvata utahensis) is listed as Endangered under the ESA and is the only
special status snail species on the Reservation. It is found in deep pools adjacent to rapids or
perennial flowing water associated with large spring complexes and was thought to be restricted
to a few isolated free-flowing reaches or spring-alcove habitats in the middle Snake River
characterized by cold well oxygenated, unpolluted water (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993).
This species historically occurred from river mile 492 (near Grandview, Idaho) to river mile 585,
just above Thousand Springs, with a disjunct population in the American Falls Dam tail water
near Eagle Rock damsite at river mile 709. Presently, populations of Utah valvata snail exist on
the Reservation within the American Falls Reservoir.
Listing of the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) as endangered or threatened was
found to be warranted, but was precluded by higher priority listing actions on July 25, 2001 (66
FR 38611). This species is currently designated as a Candidate species in the western U.S.,
62
including Idaho. The yellow-billed cuckoo is a neotropical migrant species that is considered an
obligate riparian nester that breeds only in streamside forests, especially if willow and
cottonwood stands are dominant. Most nesting in the west occurs within relatively large patches
of riparian forest (25-100 acres). When they are not breeding, they are found in open woodland
with thick undergrowth and deciduous riparian woodlands. They prefer mature cottonwood-
willow forests and are dependent upon a dense willow understory and cottonwood overstory.
Habitat for this species is present in the Bottoms.
Several other special status species are known to occur on the Reservation. Bird species
inventories have been conducted on the Reservation; a list of birds present on the Reservation is
included in Appendix B. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was first listed as an
endangered species on March 11, 1967 (64 FR 36453). In 1995 its designation was changed to
threatened in the lower 48 states (60 FR 35999) and in 1999 the bald eagle was proposed for
delisting (64 FR 36453). This species was delisted from the ESA in June 2007 and is now
managed as a species of concern. Bald eagles are still protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
identified the counties associated with the Reservation as wintering/nesting areas and bald eagles
use lands on the Reservation largely as wintering areas. Within the Reservation the greatest
density of bald eagles occurs around American Falls Reservoir during late fall and winter
months. Cottonwood trees along the Snake River and reservoir margin provide day and night
roost areas and are often located adjacent to foraging areas. Beyond the American Falls
Reservoir and Snake River, bald eagles are frequently observed near open water where
waterfowl congregate such as the mouths of Spring Creek, Clear Creek, Portneuf River, and
Bannock Creek (Bechtel Environmental, Inc. 1994, in Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Important
winter roosts for bald eagles are also present in the Bannock Peak area. In 2006 and 2007 there
was a successful bald eagle nest in the Fort Hall Bottoms (Christopherson 2007, personal
communication).
No special status mammal species are known to occur on the Reservation. However,
Townsend’s big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii) is suspected to occur on the Reservation and the
gray wolf may be present at times. Townsend’s big-eared bat is experiencing declines in
population and habitat and is in danger of extinction in Idaho. Inventories for this species would
contribute towards understanding the range and potential threats on the Reservation. Gray
wolves (Canis lupus) that may occur within the Reservation boundaries today are part of the
northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment of the gray wolf that was delisted from
protection under the ESA on February 27, 2008, (73 FR 10514). Populations of wolves were
reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho and have successfully established
breeding packs in those and other areas of the state. Wolf populations are expected to expand
until constrained by resource or human imposed limitations, so occasional sightings within the
Reservation can be expected. In 2000, a lone wolf was killed in the Blackfoot Mountains, north
of the Blackfoot Reservoir. Breeding wolves are not known to occur on the Reservation;
however, because of the species’ the transient nature it is possible that wolves have and will
continue to travel through the Reservation periodically (Elliott and Sawyer 2002).
Currently there are two special status amphibian species on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
These species include the Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) and Boreal toad (Bufo boreas
boreas). There is potential for these species to be listed on the ESA due to declines in range,
rarity, and endangerment factors. The Northern leopard frog can be found in the Riparian
63
vegetation type. The boreal toad can also be found in riparian, aspen/conifer and mountain shrub
vegetation types. A status review would contribute greatly toward the range and conservation of
these special status amphibians on the Reservation. The common garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis) is the only special status reptile species on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. This snake
species can be found in the Aspen/Conifer, Mountain Shrub, and Riparian vegetation types.
Big Game Species
The main species addressed by the Big Game Program are mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk
(Cervus elaphus), moose (Alces alces), and antelope (Antilocapra americana), which represent
an integral part of the Tribes’ treaty hunting rights. The program does work on habitat
restoration projects, big game counts, road maintenance, observations and monitoring of big
game species and habitat. Big game species are monitored throughout the year for health and
population purposes. Big game counts are a valuable measure of populations of deer, elk, moose
and antelope on the Reservation that allow for harvest of these species. Population counts are
taken via big game surveys done in the months of January and February and allow season harvest
quotas to be set for Tribal hunters on the Reservation. Populations need to remain sustainable to
maintain an active hunting season for today and for generations to come. The big game winter
range – shown on Figure 11 – has been reduced due to fires in the Buckskin Basin and Bannock
Creek areas.
Figure 11. Big Game Habitat on the Reservation.
64
Elk and mule deer are found in the upland areas and winter on the Reservation lands (BIA 2002).
Elk and deer populations and trends are shown on Figures 12 and 13. In 1993 there were 183 elk
and in 2007 there were 963. The lowest number recorded was the 183 in 1993 and the highest
number was 1,004 in 2005. The trendline shows that elk populations are reaching carrying
capacity at this time. In 1993 there were 259 deer and in 2007 there were 654. The lowest
number recorded was 124 in 1995 and the highest number was 831 in 2004. There has been a
loss of winter forage and winter range as a result of fire and grazing on winter range habitat;
these declines are affecting mule deer populations on the Reservation and counts indicate the
population may be reaching carrying capacity.
Figure 12. Elk Population Numbers on the Reservation.
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
93
96
98
00
02
04
06
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
Figure 13. Deer Population Numbers on the Reservation.
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
93
96
98
00
02
04
06
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
65
Moose and antelope population numbers are shown on Figures 14 and 15. In 1995, 72 moose
were counted on the Reservation and in 2007 there were 102. The highest number of moose
recorded was 105 in 2000 and the lowest was 51 in 1996. Moose populations are increasing
slowly and providing a viable huntable population. Before 2002, antelope were sighted on the
Reservation but no known counts were verified. In 2002 there were 43 antelope and in 2006
there were 25. The lowest number counted was 9 in 2004 with the highest number recorded in
2002. The antelope population appears stable at this time with habitat available for at least 150.
Figure 14. Moose Population Numbers on the Reservation.

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
93
96
98
00
02
04
06
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
Figure 15. Antelope Population Numbers on the Reservation.
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
93
96
98
00
02
04
06
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
Along with elk, mule deer, moose and antelope there are a number of other wildlife species that
are known to occur on the Reservation. Wild turkeys have historically used the river bottoms
and bison, whitetail deer, Chinese pheasant, and numerous species of waterfowl are found in the
Fort Hall Bottoms. The Bottoms and the surrounding area provide excellent water, food, and rest
and refuge areas for fall flights or ten to fifteen thousand Canada geese and an estimated five
hundred thousand ducks in the 1970s. At the time the Tribes received substantial income from
66
non-Indian permit waterfowl hunting. These revenues and the number of waterfowl produced in
the Bottoms could be dramatically increased with a sophisticated management plan. A
management plan that includes collection of scientific information and increasing goose nesting
in the Bottoms was recommended to preserve the Tribes’ waterfowl opportunities for future
generations.
3.9.2.2. Fisheries
The Fisheries Department is responsible for management of fisheries resources within the
exterior boundaries of the Reservation including streams on the Fort Hall Bottoms and mountain
streams in the Mt. Putnam and Bannock Creek areas. The primary management goal is to
restore, enhance, and protect these streams so they can support native salmonid populations at
historic levels. In addition, the department works to facilitate recovery of native fish populations
to near historic levels on the Reservation. Priorities include benefiting weak but recoverable
native fish populations and important trophy trout and subsistence fisheries within the
Reservation and promoting natural riverine ecosystems for native assemblages of species.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Snake River Policy

The Shoshone Bannock Tribes (Tribes) will pursue, promote, and where necessary, initiate
efforts to restore the Snake River systems and affected unoccupied lands to a natural
condition. This includes the restoration of component resources to conditions which most
closely represents the ecological features associated with a natural riverine ecosystem. In
addition, the Tribes will work to ensure the protection, preservation, and where appropriate-
the enhancement of Rights reserved by the Tribes under the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868
(Treaty) and any inherent aboriginal rights.
The Reservation is drained by more than 20 streams (Figure 16). Many small streams drain
montane areas of the Reservation and feed into the Blackfoot and Portneuf Rivers. Tribal Water
Quality Standards identify the following as Outstanding Resource Waters on the Reservation:
Snake River (Fort Hall Bottoms), West Fork Bannock Creek, Ross Fork Creek, Mill Creek, and
Thirty-day Creek. These creeks most closely represent the ecological features associated with a
natural riverine ecosystem and were identified as outstanding because they meet the following
criteria:
 Outstanding national or Tribal resource
 Waters of exceptional recreational, cultural, spiritual, or ecological significance
 Waters supporting priority species as determined by the Tribes.
Of particular importance are streams in the Fort Hall Bottoms, a large wetland approximately
33,000 square acres adjacent to the Snake River near its entrance into American Falls Reservoir.
These streams are all spring fed, low gradient, and relatively short in length. Of the four primary
Bottoms spring streams, Spring Creek is the largest (discharge averages 12.75 m3/s and is
approximately 15 km in length) and Clear Creek is the second largest (average discharge 5.4
m3/s and is approximately 11 km in length). These Bottoms streams provide critical wintering,
spawning and rearing habitats for adfluvial and resident salmonids (Taki and Arthaud 1993).
Exceptional cold-water fisheries exist in numerous spring-fed tributaries in the Fort Hall Bottoms
67
and the Snake River. Streams in the Bottoms are far more important than all other waters
combined; collectively, these streams are some of the most unique water resources in the United
States and potentially the single-most important stream fishery in Idaho. High quality streams in
the Fort Hall Bottoms with productive fisheries include Spring Creek, Clear Creek, Big Jimmy
Creek, and Biggie Creek (Elliott and Sawyer 2002).
Figure 16. Intermittent and Perennial Streams on the Reservation.
Perennial streams that drain forested, mountain habitats of the Reservation also provide
important habitat for cold-water species. Major streams that drain forested areas include Mill
and Ross Fork Creeks on the west and northwest flanks of Mount Putnam and Jeff Cabin and
Toponce Creeks that flow eastward from its slopes. The South Fork of Ross Creek drains the
north slopes of the Pocatello Range. In the Deep Creek Range, West Fork Bannock, Squaw, and
Sawmill Creeks drain Bannock Peak.
Several streams on the Reservation and the American Falls Reservoir provide Tribal members
with abundant opportunities for subsistence and cultural harvest of native and non-native fishes.
Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri), brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow-cutthroat hybrids,
mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdii), Utah sucker (Catostomus ardens), largescale sucker
(Catostomus macrocheilus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), black crappie (Pomoxis
68
nigromaculatus), black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) are found in various Reservation waters (Elliott and
Sawyer 2002).
Yellowstone cutthroat trout are considered a sensitive species by the U.S. Forest Service and a
species of concern by the State of Idaho. Currently, the Reservation has two locations of pure
Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the Mt. Putnam area; Ross Fork and Mill Creeks. These two
streams along with West Fork Bannock Creek and Upper Portneuf River are of prime importance
and are the most abundant in trout densities for Reservation mountain streams. Limiting factors
for these streams are mainly negative impacts from cattle grazing which cause streambank
damage and further decrease in habitat such as clean gravels for spawning. Ross Fork Creek has
a strong population of Yellowstone cutthroat trout at Twitchell Meadows (Elliott and Sawyer
2002).
In a 1986 fisheries study conducted in Ross Fork Creek, brook trout were most abundant
followed by rainbow-cutthroat hybrids, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, and mottled sculpins
(Mariah Associates 1986). Mill Creek contains an isolated population of pure Yellowstone
cutthroat trout within the conifer forest on Mount Putnam. A strong, nearly pure population of
cutthroat trout exists in West Fork Bannock Creek below the conifer forest on Bannock Peak.
Thirty-day Creek has excellent fishery habitat but it has been invaded by non-native brook trout
(Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Other forested streams on the Reservation (e.g., Toponce, Jeff Cabin,
and Sawmill Creeks) have been more severely affected by livestock grazing, roads, limited
timber habitat, and additional stressors; as a result they are degraded and in need of protection
(Elliott and Sawyer 2002).
The Reservation is rich in sport fishing potential, from the beaver ponds along Big and Little
Toponce Creeks to the spring-fed streams in the Fort Hall Bottoms. Catch-rates of trout
primarily on the Bottoms have fluctuated from < 0.4 to > 1.2 fish per hour (Figure 17). In 2006,
approximately 0.80 trout were being harvested per hour and about 0.20 per hour for trout over 18
inches. Relatively, the Bottoms could be considered as ranking about 5th for streams in Idaho.
Angler reports (non-member) on the quality (size and appearance) of naturally reproducing
cutthroat rainbow hybrids have been positive. Tribal members harvest mainly in the trout
spawning months from December to March during which times many large trout are harvested
more so than in the warmer months. Numerical data for members is lacking because they are not
required to provide harvest numbers to fish and wildlife staff.
69
Figure 17. Rate of Trout Caught per Hour by Non-Members.
Streams on the Reservation have been negatively affected (e.g., loss of riparian vegetation,
downcutting, lateral scouring of streambanks) by a variety of sources, including livestock
grazing, construction and operation of American Falls Reservoir, upstream operations on the
Snake River including off-Reservation channelization, and the 1976 Teton Dam collapse. Cattle,
bison, and horses have been present on the Reservation since the early 1800s. Damage to
streambanks from years of unrestricted grazing continues to be a problem on Reservation
streams. Rapid flooding and drafting of American Falls Reservoir in conjunction with seasonal
freeze-thaw cycles is a cause of streambank failures on lowland Reservation streams. Negative
impacts from streambank failures include widened channels, a reduction in riparian vegetation
and instream cover, increased summer water temperatures, and deposition of fines on critical
spawning and rearing substrates.
Collectively, these impacts have decreasing spawning and adult trout habitat. Today many
streams support reduced salmonid populations and those streams that do have viable salmonid
populations are in serious danger of extirpating remaining native salmonid stocks, through
hybridization, competition, and further loss of habitat. The gradual widening and shallowing of
Bottoms’ streams is the result of natural stream aging that has been accelerated by the lack or
streambank vegetation and livestock breaking down unprotected banks. Streambank failures on
the Bottoms streams are a serious problem affecting aquatic biota through changes in habitat
quality.
Limiting factors for Yellowstone cutthroat in tributaries to American Falls Reservoir (Fort Hall
Bottoms) include hybridization with rainbow trout, reservoir operations, overgrazing of riparian
areas from cattle and bison, sedimentation, widened channels and increased water temperatures,
and dewatering of lower Portneuf and low dissolved oxygen levels. Limiting Factors for Upper
Portneuf River above Chesterfield Reservoir include over-grazing from cattle, dewatering, and
sedimentation. The Upper Portneuf on Reservation has been negatively impacted by cattle
grazing (loss of riparian, downcutting, etc.). Dewatering of small tributaries and overgrazing of
Portneuf drainage negatively impact spawning habitat and rearing habitats of trout.
In 1999, a genetic inventory of suspected populations of rainbow trout and Yellowstone cutthroat
trout was initiated Reservation wide. Thirteen streams were found to contain salmonids
70
(Table 4). Two sites showed no evidence of genetic introgression; Mill Creek and Ross Fork
Creek. Previous studies conducted by the Fisheries Department have included trout densities in
Upper Clear Creek from 1988 to 2006; length frequency of trout in Spring Creek from 2003-
2006; densities of cutthroat vs. brook trout on Ross Fork from 1987-2006; and fry densities on
the head-end of Spring Creek from 1991-2006.
The primary focus of restoration has changed over years, in particular, less reliance on in-stream
structures and more reliance on exclosure fencing, bank sloping and revegetation (with native
plants propagated in Tribal nurseries) and natural healing processes. Future efforts by the
Fisheries Department to plant streambank vegetation would slow the natural aging process;
provide valuable shade and cover for trout; create food and cover for other wildlife; and act as
natural barriers to livestock. Increased and continued restoration/protection efforts that could
include development of a Tribal fish hatchery for stocking impacted streams on the Reservation
and in other areas would also increase population numbers.
71
Table 4. Genetic Inventory Sampling of Fish on Fort Hall Indian Reservation.

Sample
Stream Species
Size
30-Day Brook Trout 0
Birch Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid 9
Cold Creek NO FISH 0
Garden Creek NO FISH 0
Lower Moonshine Sucker spp, Longnose Dace, Redside Shiner 0
Lower/Mid Jeff Cabin Sucker spp, Longnose Dace, Redside Shiner 0
Portneuf/Chesterfield Rainbow Trout, Sucker spp, Longnose Dace 0
Squaw Creek NO FISH 0
Upper Portneuf Longnose Dace 0
Wood Creek NO FISH 0
Mill Cutthroat trout 25
Ross Fork Cutthroat trout 25
WF Bannock Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid 25
South Fork Ross Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid, Brook Trout, Sucker spp 25
Moonshine Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid 25
Little Toponce Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid 25
Big Jimmy (Fort Hall Bottoms) Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid, Sucker spp 25
Midnight Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid 25
Spring (Fort Hall Bottoms) Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid, Sucker spp, Rainbow Trout 25
North Toponce Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid 25
Rattlesnake Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid, Sucker spp 25
Clear (Fort Hall Bottoms) Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid 25
Results are from sampling that occurred from August to September 1999.
3.9.3. Cultural Resources

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have a holistic definition of cultural resources and therefore for
the purposes of this EA they are broadly defined as historic and pre-contact archaeological sites,
buildings and structures, travel routes, material culture items, oral traditions, language, sacred
landscapes and objects, social institutions, social practices, beliefs, religious practices,
intellectual property, traditional cultural properties, and natural resources – water, air, wildlife,
plants, minerals – and their use. These cultural resources may consist of land, water, and air, and
the associated vegetation and landforms, or they may also have other physical evidence left by
humans, and they can be tied to persons, places, events, or practices of social customs and
traditional skills. Landscape cultural features include mountain peaks, benches, springs, cedar
bluffs, and the Bottoms. See Shoshone and Bannock names for major areas on the Fort Hall
Reservation. (Figure 18).
72
Figure 18 Shoshone and Bannock names for Major Areas on the Fort Hall Reservation.
73
Several competing chronology sequences have been established in an effort to understand and
explain human occupation and use of the upper Great Basin. While the archaeological
community has yet to agree upon any particular chronological sequence, the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes believe that the chronology remains within the knowledge of the Tribes and they further
maintain that the existence of the Shoshone and Bannock peoples has been intact since creation.
The archeological record maintains that human occupation of the region has been more or less
constant over the last 12,500 years and the prehistoric chronology of the region continues
through the historic period. Evidence suggests that hunting and gathering have been the main
subsistence strategy from the paleo-Indian period forward to historic and contemporary times as
many Tribal members continue to hunt and gather. The indigenous people of this region have
been in contact with Euro-Americans since the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
Fur trappers as well as explorers with the Lewis and Clark expedition place Euro-Americans in
contact with Great Basin people during this time period. Additional Euro-American contact
came with the pioneer migration along the Oregon Trail and the development of the Fort Hall
Trading post – established in 1834 to serve early trappers.
The Reservation has many culturally significant archaeological and historical sites including
National Register and eligible landmarks, districts, properties, and objects (historic, tribal, and
prehistoric sites including permanent and seasonal village sites, quarries, Fort Hall, Cantonment
Loring, California-Oregon Trail), Tribal and allotment development (including cemetery and
isolated grave sites), sacred and religious areas (cultural areas, vision quest locations), and places
of culturally significant botanical resources (the “cedars,” juniper areas, choke cherry locations),
some of which have a particular cultural sensitivity (e.g., burial areas, the Bottoms). Presently,
although only 25 percent of the Reservation lands have been surveyed, the Heritage Tribal Office
(HeTO) has identified 126 archaeological sites within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation and many of the sensitive cultural resource sites within the boundaries of the
Reservation have been inventoried (BIA 2002).
Among the many known cultural resource areas on the Reservation, the Fort Hall Bottoms is a
unique resource area of high cultural significance for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes that is used
for several practices and purposes. Historically, Tribal members lived in the Bottoms area and
utilized the resources for cultural, spiritual, and gathering purposes as well as agricultural
practices. Tribal members refer to the Bottoms as “Bungawidikie” meaning near water’s edge.
This unique area is characterized by typical riparian vegetation next to the many streams and
springs in the area with tall grass and sage steppe types in the upland areas. The numerous water
sources in the area have always been hydrologically connected to the area and served as the
ancient wintering ground and the heart of the Shoshone-Bannock aboriginal homeland. The Fort
Hall Bottoms contain National Historic Sites (i.e., Fort Hall) and National Register Sites (i.e., the
Oregon Trail). Many Tribal members continue to gather plants and harvest animals from the
Bottoms for cultural and spiritual practices as well as for food and medicinal purposes.
Protection of these resources and continued access to sacred sites are paramount to the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The Fort Hall Business Council – the responsible governing
authority for managing cultural resources on the Reservation – and the Tribes are profoundly
dedicated to the protection and conservation of cultural resource areas and sites within the
Tribes’ aboriginal territory. A Cultural Resource Management Policy was drafted by the Tribes
in 1999 to protect Tribal resources, customs, and values among the Shoshone and Bannock
people of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. By authorization of Resolution CULT-96-0262, the
74
Fort Hall Business Council established the HeTO to conduct cultural resource management and
enforcement procedures to comply with Tribal and federal laws. HeTO is responsible for
preparing management plans, implementation plans and procedures, and policy for cultural
resource issues and for consulting with the Tribal Council prior to implementation of activities
with the potential for effects to cultural resources. When properties are discovered on the
Reservation during implementation of an undertaking, HeTO is responsible for developing a plan
for the treatment of such properties. An undertaking is considered to have an adverse affect if it
would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, or association. Adverse effects on properties include, but are not limited to:
 Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property
 Isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property’s setting when
that character contributes to the property’s qualifications for the National Register
 Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the
property or alter its setting
 Neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction
 Transfer, lease, or sale of the property.
If an adverse effect on a property is found, HeTO notifies the Tribal Chairman and Council
members and consults with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to seek ways to avoid
or reduce the effects on the property. In addition, to these requirements, all federally funded
activities within the Reservation boundaries are required to comply with various Tribal and
federal regulations. A number of the federal laws, regulations, and guidelines, as well as Tribal
ordinances that govern and protect cultural resources on Indian lands are listed in Appendix A.
The principle federal law addressing cultural resources is the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 USC Section 470), and its implementing regulations (36 CFR
800). The NHPA describes the process for identifying and evaluating historic properties, for
assessing the effects of federal actions on historic properties, and for consulting to avoid, reduce,
or minimize adverse effects. The term historic properties refer to cultural resources that meet
specific criteria for eligibility for listing on the NHPA. This process does not require historic
properties to be preserved, but does ensure that the decisions of federal agencies concerning the
treatment of these places result from meaningful consideration of cultural and historic values and
the options available to protect properties.
Because of the Tribes dedication to the protection and conservation of cultural resource areas and
sites the Cultural Resources Department has developed a number of objectives including the
following:
 Manage for holistic values for traditional and cultural resources
 Inventory, as necessary, for cultural resources within exterior boundaries of the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation
 Manage closed area of the Reservation to protect native plants which may be used for
medicinal and traditional uses for Tribal members
 Develop and implement a Tribal Cultural Resource Management Plan
 Protect, preserve and pass on to future generations knowledge of cultural resources
 Foster the continuation of Shoshone and Bannock language and culture and to protect and
support traditional religion and ways of life
75
 Maintain the identity of the Shoshone and Bannock people

 Protect and preserve the burials and grave sites on the Reservation.
76
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.1. Introduction
This chapter presents an analysis of the potential impacts of implementing the selected
management measures in their entirety (as presented in Chapter 2) on the physical, biological,
and cultural resources of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in the context of the scope of the
Proposed Action and alternatives and in consideration of the affected environment described in
Chapter 3. Implementation of the No Action Alternative reflects the continuation of existing
baseline conditions as described in Section 2.3 and Chapter 3.0. Cumulative effects are
addressed at the end of this chapter.
4.2. Physical Resources

4.2.1. Air
4.2.1.1. No Action Alternative

Reservation. Under this management scenario, potential impacts to air quality would generally
be realized at the project implementation stage instead of the planning stage, and thus protection
of or mitigation for impacts to air quality would be reactive in nature. The primary concern
regarding the potential environmental effects on air quality would be exceedances of NAAQS
and other Federal limits and impacts on existing air permits. Because Tribal departments would
largely continue to work independently to plan and implement their programs and projects, little
consideration would be given to how their activities might impact air quality. The lack of
integrated, interdisciplinary consideration in planning and implementation of projects could
result in an improvement, degradation, or no change to air quality.
4.2.1.2. Proposed Action Alternative

Similar to the No Action Alternative, current land use and zoning would remain in effect on the
Reservation under this alternative. However, under this alternative specific projects identified in
the draft Comprehensive Plan or other department or program plans would be implemented
utilizing a methodology that examines resource issues in an interdisciplinary manner prior to
project implementation. This early planning process would serve to identify potential impacts to
air quality and address them in a proactive manner.
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative may improve or have no effect on air quality.
Activities would be planned in a manner consistent with air quality protection objectives. Minor
temporary impacts to air quality from increases in fugitive dust may occur during construction
projects but potential increases would be minimized because BMPs would be included in project
planning and followed during construction. Other activities that may occur under the Proposed
Action Alternative, such as prescribed burning, would also potentially cause a temporary
negative effect on air quality. Prescribed fire would generate smoke that could potentially cause
negative impacts to the public, both on and off Reservation. However, prescribed burning is
conducted under strict parameters to ensure adequate dispersion of smoke and associated
particulate matter.
77
4.2.1.3. Growth Alternative

The Growth Alternative would employ the same integrated management process as the Proposed
Action Alternative but the degree of development would be greater and could occur outside of
the existing zoning footprints. Changes in land use and zoning would result with more land
being converted from irrigated farming and grazing to industrial and urban commercial uses;
there would be up to 1,500 fewer acres of irrigated farmland and 3,000 fewer acres of land
available for grazing and 3,000 more acres available for industrial development and 1,500 more
acres available for urban commercial activities.
Expanded acreage for industrial and urban commercial development would have the potential to
affect air quality on the Reservation during construction and operation. BMPs would be used to
minimize fugitive dust impacts from agricultural and construction activities and proper permits
would be required for any new emission sources. Therefore, impacts to air quality are not
anticipated to change appreciably under this alternative compared to the No Action Alternative.
4.2.1.4. Restoration Alternative

Under this alternative there would be up to 10,000 fewer acres of irrigated farmland, 4,900 fewer
acres of dryland farming, and 36,900 fewer acres of land available for grazing. There would
3,000 more acres available for industrial development and 1,500 more acres available for urban
commercial activities. No land would be zoned as available for mining and there would be
56,050 acres of additional open space. Air quality would be expected to improve under this
alternative as fewer ground disturbing activities would be authorized.
4.2.2. Soils

Reservation which often results in reactive management to problems after their occurrence,
rather than on managing the resource to prevent impacts. Under this management scenario,
potential impacts to soil resources would generally be realized at the project implementation
stage instead of the planning stage, and thus protection of or mitigation for impacts to the
resource would be reactive in nature. Because Tribal departments would largely continue to
work independently to plan and implement their programs and projects, there would be no plan
of action to prevent or minimize potential soil problems related to erosion and sedimentation
before their occurrence. The Reservation’s soils are vulnerable to degradation without the
implementation of interdisciplinary planning. By failing to address potential soil erosion and
sedimentation issues at the beginning of the project process, impacts on soils associated with
erosion and sedimentation would be expected to continue. The lack of integrated,
interdisciplinary consideration in planning and implementation of projects could result in soil
loss or disturbance remaining unchanged or increasing.

78
soil resources and address them in a proactive manner.
Under the Proposed Action Alternative activities would be planned in a manner consistent with
soil resource protection objectives and soils would be protected. Minor impacts to soil resources
may occur during construction of various projects but many potential impacts to other resources
would be avoided because best management practices (BMPs) would be included in project
planning and followed during construction. Other activities with the potential to impact water
quality – such as forest and fire management activities, grazing, agricultural practices, etc. –
would also be implemented using BMPs appropriate for those actions to minimize effects.
Erosion controls designed to reduce sedimentation would be implemented to reduce the potential
for impacts to soils.
The initial identification and use of BMPs in project implementation would minimize potential
impacts from proposed activities. By implementing effective soil erosion and sedimentation
control planning into the initial planning process, impacts on soils associated with erosion and
sedimentation would be minimized and beneficial effects would be expected. With proper
planning and use of BMPs, impacts to soils from construction and other ground disturbing
activities, would be expected to be temporary and minor.

Changes in land use and zoning would result in more land being converted from irrigated
farming and grazing to industrial and urban commercial uses; there would be up to 1,500 fewer
acres of irrigated farmland and 3,000 fewer acres of land available for grazing and 3,000 more
acres available for industrial development and 1,500 more acres available for urban commercial
activities. Emphasizing resource uses such as livestock grazing, agricultural production, and
mining and expanding acreage for industrial and urban commercial development would affect
soil resources on the Reservation. While increased economic development could occur under
this alternative, integrated resource management planning would be in place to ensure potential
impacts to soil resources are adequately considered and mitigated. Therefore while soil
resources would be protected more acres would potentially be disturbed as more land is
converted for development.

The Restoration Alternative would employ the same integrated management process as the
Proposed Action Alternative and therefore impacts to soils would be similar to those described
above for that alternative. However, because this alternative would decrease the amount land
available for farming or grazing and increase the amount of open space – there would be up to
10,000 fewer acres available for irrigated farming, 4,900 fewer acres available for dryland
farming, 36,900 fewer acres of land available for grazing, no land zoned for mining, and 56,050
acres of additional open space – there would be less disturbance to soils in those areas. An
increase in soil disturbance could occur if development were to occur on the 3,000 additional
acres made available for industrial development and the 1,500 additional acres made available
for urban commercial activities.
Use of the integrated management process described under the Proposed Action Alternative
would result in protection of soils through the early planning and including BMPs etc. as well as
through actual restoration actions in many disturbed areas. Restoration activities and projects
79
implemented under this alternative – such as restoration of sagebrush shrubland in some areas;
restoration to a natural state of most dryland farmed areas; closure and repair of most
backcountry roads; restoration to proper functioning condition of all riparian areas on the
Reservation; changes in range management (especially in the Bottoms area); and restoration of
the former Gay Mine site to open space – would have a beneficial effect on soils through
rehabilitation of degraded areas maintenance of groundcover in undisturbed areas.
Reducing the areas available for grazing and agriculture use (e.g., dryland farming) would reduce
the potential for future ground disturbance in those areas and allow rehabilitation and
revegetation to occur. Strong growth and development boundaries would be established and
adhered to with economic development and urban commercial and industrial growth being
limited to the areas on the Reservation already impacted by such activities. Allowing some lands
to return to native range/uses would reduce the potential for soil erosion in those areas. Under
this alternative, a Bottoms Management Plan would be developed and the amount of land
available in the Bottoms for livestock grazing would be reduced as more acreage is set aside for
wildland use. This action would reduce soil disturbance and allow revegetation in areas that
have been previously disturbed.
4.2.3. Water

Reservation. Under this management scenario, potential impacts to water resources would
generally be realized at the project implementation stage instead of the planning stage, and thus
protection of or mitigation for impacts to the resource would be reactive in nature. Because
Tribal departments would largely continue to work independently to plan and implement their
programs and projects, little consideration would be given to how their activities might impact
water resources. The Reservation’s water resources are vulnerable to degradation without the
implementation of interdisciplinary planning that considers measures such as nonpoint source
pollution controls and watershed protection measures at the planning stage. The lack of
integrated, interdisciplinary consideration in planning and implementation of projects could
result in water resources remaining unchanged or being negatively impacted.

water resources and address them in a proactive manner.
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have limited, minor impacts to
riparian, wetland, and other water resources. Activities would be planned in a manner consistent
with water resource protection objectives. Minor impacts to water resources may occur during
construction of various projects but many potential impacts would be avoided because BMPs
would be included in project planning and followed during construction. Other activities with
the potential to impact water quality – such as forest and fire management activities, grazing, etc.
– would also be implemented using BMPs appropriate for those actions resulting in minimal
80
effects. Erosion controls designed to reduce sedimentation would be implemented to reduce the
potential for impacts to water quality. The establishment of buffers for project near water
sources would minimize potential impacts to riparian, wetland, and other water resources
associated with adjacent activities. Efforts to limit impacts on water bodies would reduce the
potential for water quality degradation both in and adjacent to the Reservation.

the existing zoning footprints. Increased economic development could occur under this
alternative in existing developed areas and along the interstate corridors. Changes in land use
and zoning would result with more land being converted from irrigated farming and grazing to
industrial and urban commercial uses; there would be up to 1,500 fewer acres of irrigated
farmland and 3,000 fewer acres of land available for grazing and 3,000 more acres available for
industrial development and 1,500 more acres available for urban commercial activities.
Emphasizing resource uses such as livestock grazing, agricultural production, and mining could
result in impacts – both positive and negative – to water resources. Construction activities
related to increased development could also result in impacts to water resources.

Proposed Action Alternative but this alternative would emphasize natural resource conservation
by reducing the areas open to future development. Under this alternative there would be up to
10,000 fewer acres of irrigated farmland, 4,900 fewer acres of dryland farming, and 36,900
fewer acres of land available for grazing. There would 3,000 more acres available for industrial
development and 1,500 more acres available for urban commercial activities. No land would be
zoned as available for mining and there would be some 56,050 acres of additional open space.
These land use changes have the potential to decrease impacts to water resources.
Reducing the amount of land available for livestock grazing and agriculture use, particularly in
the Buckskin Basin area, and returning some lands to native sagebrush shrubland would
indirectly benefit water quality by decreasing the amount of soil disturbance and erosion in those
areas. Restoration of all riparian areas on the Reservation to proper functioning condition as well
as implementation of changes in range management (especially in the Bottoms area) would also
result in indirect beneficial impacts. Because substantial areas such as the Bottoms that are
heavily used for livestock grazing would be set aside for wildland use, the potential for impacts
to water quality would be reduced.
Other actions proposed under this alternative would provide additional protections for water
quality. Restoration of the former Gay Mine site to open space and closure and repair of
backcountry roads proposed as part of this alternative would reduce soil disturbance and the
potential for erosion and sedimentation thereby indirectly improving water quality.
81
4.3. Biological Resources

4.3.1. Vegetation

Reservation. Under this management scenario, potential impacts to vegetation would generally
be realized at the project implementation stage instead of the planning stage, and thus protection
of or mitigation for impacts to the resource would be reactive in nature. Because Tribal
departments would largely continue to work independently to plan and implement their programs
and projects, little consideration would be given to how their activities might impact vegetation.
The Reservation’s vegetation resources are vulnerable to degradation in some areas without the
implementation of interdisciplinary planning that includes consideration of resource protective
measures at the planning stage. The lack of integrated, interdisciplinary consideration in
planning and implementation of projects could result in vegetation resources remaining
unchanged or being negatively impacted.

vegetation and address them in a proactive manner.
riparian, wetland, and other vegetation resources; overall resources may be improved or remain
unchanged. Activities would be planned in a manner consistent with vegetation resource
protection objectives. Minor impacts to vegetation resources may occur during construction of
various projects but many potential impacts would be avoided because BMPs would be included
in project planning and followed during construction. Initial integrated planning under the
Proposed Action would incorporate BMPs to help preserve ground cover in project
implementation and minimize potential impacts to vegetation. Other activities with the potential
to impact vegetation – such as forest and fire management activities, grazing, etc. – would also
be implemented using BMPs appropriate for those actions in order to minimize effects. The
establishment of buffers would minimize potential impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation.
Applying prescribed fire on the Reservation would gradually decrease the fire return interval so
that it becomes closer to pre-settlement disturbance patterns and would encourage more fire
resistant species. Through implementation of prescribed fire and other forest management
actions, a mosaic of vegetation species would be created and the pockets of desirable habitat
would support plant and wildlife species diversity. Implementing these types of actions in an
integrated manner will help to focus efforts on restoring structure and composition in certain
vegetative communities.
Actions such as forest management or prescribed burning would be conducted in an
interdisciplinary manner. Some short term direct effects would occur as vegetation is crushed by
heavy equipment or reduced by prescribed fire. Indirect impacts to vegetation would be
82
beneficial for most herbaceous species in the long term as the removal of overstory vegetation
would encourage native grasses and forbs through decreased competition and increased sunlight,
with possible growth stimulation from fire. Mosaics of vegetation species would support plant
diversity. Temporary direct impacts to vegetation could result from being crushed by heavy
equipment or reduced by prescribed fire. Indirect impacts to vegetation would be beneficial for
most herbaceous species; their growth would be encouraged through decreased competition and
increased sunlight, with possible growth stimulation from fire.
Herbicides would be used as necessary to control noxious weeds and invasive species. Only
approved pesticides would be used and they would be applied by qualified applicators according
to label directions.

result in impacts to vegetation resources. Development of additional acreage for industrial and
urban commercial uses would likely result in removal of vegetation resources on those areas and
thus fewer acres of native vegetation would exist on the Reservation.

Proposed Action Alternative and therefore impacts to vegetation would be similar to those
described above for that alternative. However, because this alternative would emphasize natural
resource conservation by reducing the areas open to future development the potential for effects
to vegetation would be reduced. Urban commercial and industrial growth and development
would be limited to the areas on the Reservation already impacted by such activities so no new
areas of native vegetation would be disturbed. This alternative would also change existing
zoning by reducing areas available for livestock grazing and agriculture use (e.g., dryland
farming) and would return some lands to native range/uses. These actions would improve
vegetation conditions in those areas.
Other restoration activities and projects tied to this alternative would result in improvements to
the overall condition of vegetative resources on the Reservation. These include a reduction in
areas devoted to irrigated agriculture (e.g., Buckskin Basin area) and restoration of sagebrush
shrubland; restoration to a natural state of most dryland farmed areas; closure and repair of most
backcountry roads; restoration of riparian areas to proper functioning condition; changes in range
management (especially in the Bottoms area); and restoration of the former Gay Mine site to
open space. These actions would indirectly benefit vegetation by reducing the amount of
disturbance occurring in an area. Setting aside substantial areas of the Bottoms for wildland use
would reduce livestock grazing and allow vegetation to recover to its natural state as habitat for
83
wildlife. This alternative would promote native range/uses and would be most protective of the
vegetation resources on the Reservation.
4.3.2. Wildlife and Fisheries

Reservation. Under this management scenario, potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat
would generally be realized at the project implementation stage instead of the planning stage,
and thus protection of or mitigation for impacts to the resource would be reactive in nature.
Because Tribal departments would largely continue to work independently to plan and
implement their programs and projects, little consideration would be given to how their activities
might impact wildlife or their habitat. The Reservation’s wildlife habitat is vulnerable to
degradation without implementation of interdisciplinary planning that considers including habitat
protection measures at the planning stage. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no
formal implementation of an integrated planning system to ensure consideration of effects to
wildlife habitat, resulting in a continued challenge for the Tribes to achieve their objective of
providing benefits to wildlife species and to maintain or improve overall biodiversity.
The lack of integrated, interdisciplinary consideration in planning and implementation of projects
could result in wildlife resources remaining unchanged or being negatively impacted. Minor
adverse effects to terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic habitat, and fish and wildlife would be expected
to continue because the No Action Alternative would not assure project planning takes place to
include routine management measures to protect and enhance habitats by preventing or
minimizing potential impacts from project implementation. Minor adverse effects to would be
expected to continue and the health and condition of existing populations would not be
improved. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would continue the management of
threatened and endangered species.

Similar to the No Action Alternative, current land use and zoning would remain in affect on the
wildlife and fisheries and address them in a proactive manner. Under the Proposed Action
Alternative, implementation of interdisciplinary planning would be beneficial to species by
improving and integrating the information available to managers for the decision making
process.
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have a positive net effect on wildlife
management actions on the Reservation by providing improved integration between departments.
wildlife and fisheries but overall populations and habitat would be improved through
interdisciplinary planning. Activities would be planned in a manner consistent with wildlife and
fisheries resource protection objectives. Minor impacts to these resources may occur during
construction of various projects depending upon their location but many potential impacts would
be avoided because BMPs would be included in project planning and followed during
84
construction. Other activities with the potential to impact wildlife and fisheries – such as forest
and fire management activities, grazing, etc. – would also implement BMPs appropriate for those
actions to minimize effects.
Management measures designed to protect and enhance wildlife habitats (e.g., aquatic, riparian,
wetlands, terrestrial) would be included in project implementation, thereby resulting in an
increase in the quality and complexity of the habitats. Improvements in habitat quality and
complexity would beneficially affect wildlife habitat and biodiversity. Although changes
brought about by implementation of fire or forestry management actions would produce both
positive and negative effects based upon individual species habitat and forage preferences, they
would have a net beneficial effect on those species adapted to a fire maintained ecosystem.
Populations of game species would increase in the short term as grass and forb growth is
stimulated and better quality brood rearing habitat is created through the use of prescribed fire.
Implementation of the alternative would also have a net beneficial effect on nongame species
that would extend throughout the terrestrial and aquatic communities. Implementation of
forestry and fire actions would change forest community structure at a slow rate, and create less
favorable habitats for many nongame species (including some neo-tropical migrant birds) but
would maintain native and migratory populations of these species at levels consistent with
ecological carrying capacity as it relates to pre-settlement conditions.
The use of prescribed fire would have both short and long term negative effects on mid-story and
shrub nesting avifauna. These changes would produce both positive and negative effects based
upon individual species habitat and forage preferences. The effects of specific actions such as
prescribed fire on amphibian and reptile populations are unclear but under this alternative they
would be addressed during interdisciplinary project planning for proposed forest and habitat
management actions.
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have beneficial effects on federally
protected species as planned actions such as fire and forest management would occur in an
interdisciplinary manner. Seasonal and resident terrestrial species populations would benefit
from the transformation of potential habitat to suitable habitat as management activities restore
historic structure and disturbance regimes to forested areas.

result in impacts to wildlife and fisheries. Increased development could also result in impacts to
these resources. Populations would still be managed for sustainable use but wildlife habitat may
be reduced.
85

Proposed Action Alternative, therefore effects to wildlife and fisheries from any projects
implemented would be similar to those described above for that alternative. However, because
this alternative would reduce the areas open to farming and grazing while increasing the amount
of open space, beneficial effects to wildlife and fisheries would be increased. Under this
alternative there would be up to 10,000 fewer acres of irrigated farmland, 4,900 fewer acres of
dryland farming, and 36,900 fewer acres of land available for grazing. No land would be zoned
as available for mining and there would be 56,050 acres of additional open space. Strong growth
and development boundaries would be established and adhered to with economic development
and urban commercial and industrial growth being limited to the areas on the Reservation
already impacted by such activities. These changes in land use zoning would result in
improvements in wildlife populations and habitats as well as potential increases in the amount of
habitat available.
Reducing the amount of land devoted to agriculture and restoring sagebrush shrubland would
provide new habitat for wildlife and restoring riparian areas to proper functioning condition
would improve fisheries habitat as well as habitat for wildlife species that use this type of
habitat. Setting aside areas in the Bottoms for wildland use would improve wildlife and fisheries
habitat conditions by eliminating habitat degradation caused by livestock. Enhanced
management in the Bottoms area, restoration of the former Gay Mine site to open space, and
increased allocation of forage to wildlife would all serve to improve wildlife habitat. Closure
and repair of most backcountry roads would reduce habitat fragmentation. Overall, populations
may increase under this alternative due to changing habitat conditions and the size of the areas
designated and protected for wildlife.
4.4 Cultural Resources

4.4.1 No Action Alternative
Reservation. Under this management scenario, potential impacts to cultural resources would
generally be realized at the project implementation stage instead of the planning stage, and thus
protection of or mitigation for impacts to the resource would be reactive in nature. Because
Tribal departments would largely continue to work independently to plan and implement their
programs and projects, little consideration would be given to how their activities might impact
cultural resources. The Reservation’s cultural resources are vulnerable to degradation without
the implementation of interdisciplinary planning that considers including measures such as
avoidance and site-specific surveys at the planning stage before ground disturbance occurs. The
lack of integrated, interdisciplinary consideration in planning and implementation of projects
could result in cultural resources being damaged.
4.4.2 Proposed Action Alternative

Reservation under this alternative. However, specific projects identified in the draft
Comprehensive Plan or other department or program plans would be implemented utilizing a
methodology that examines resource issues in an interdisciplinary manner prior to project
implementation. This early planning process would serve to identify potential impacts to cultural
86
resources and address them in a proactive manner. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed
Action Alternative would result in the protection of cultural resources. Activities would be
planned in a manner consistent with cultural resource protection objectives. Potential impacts
would be avoided through implementation of cultural resource protection measures.
4.4.3 Development Alternative

Although these lands use changes would have the potential to impact cultural resources,
examination of resource issues in an interdisciplinary manner prior to project implementation
would result in the protection of cultural resources.
4.4.4 Restoration Alternative

Proposed Action Alternative; therefore effects to cultural resources would be similar to those
described above for that alternative. Zoning changes proposed under this alternative would
reduce the amount of land available for farming and grazing while increasing the amount
available for urban commercial activities and development. Although there is a potential for
impacts to cultural resources from increased development, utilization of the early planning
process would serve to identify potential impacts to cultural resources and address them in a
proactive manner. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would result in the protection of
cultural resources.
4.5 Cumulative Effects

4.5.1 Definition of Cumulative Effects
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations stipulate that the cumulative effects
analysis within an EA should consider the potential environmental impacts resulting from “the
incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions” (40 Code of
Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.7). Cumulative effects are most likely to arise when a
relationship or synergism exists between a proposed action and other actions expected to occur
during a similar time period or in a similar location. Actions overlapping with or in close
proximity to the proposed action would be expected to have more potential for a relationship
than those more geographically separated. Similarly, actions that coincide, even partially, in
time would tend to offer a higher potential for cumulative effects.
Implementation of the IRMP would result in a comprehensive natural resource management
strategy for the Tribes that improves the existing management approach for natural resources on
the Reservation. Implementation would be expected initially to improve existing environmental
87
conditions. Over time, adoption of the Proposed Action would enable the Tribes to achieve their
goal of maintaining ecosystem viability and ensuring sustainability of desired conditions.
4.5.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis
The scope of the cumulative effects analysis involves both the geographic extent of the effects
and the time frame in which the effects could be expected to occur. For this EA, the region of
influence is the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, which defines the geographic extent of the
cumulative effects analysis. The time frame for cumulative effects centers on the timing of the
proposed action and would continue into the foreseeable future. The scope of the cumulative
effects analysis also involves identifying other relevant actions in the ROI.
Beyond determining that the geographic scope and time frame for the actions interrelate to the
proposed action, the analysis employs the measure of “reasonably foreseeable” to include or
exclude other actions. For the purposes of this analysis, information about upcoming projects
from Tribal departments represent the primary sources of information regarding reasonably
foreseeable actions. Documents used to identify other actions included management plans, other
NEPA studies, and the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
4.5.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions
Past activities and projects on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation have generally not been
conducted with deliberate interdisciplinary planning prior to implementation. As a result, past
projects undertaken by one department to meet their goals and objectives have often resulted in
unintended and negative consequences on other resources and on the ability of other departments
to achieve their department’s goals and objectives. Currently, there is no set policy on
interdisciplinary planning at the project planning stage.
It is reasonable to expect that growth (both in population numbers, housing, and commercial
development) will continue to occur on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in the foreseeable
future. The ability of land and resource managers to balance this development with natural
resource sustainability and cultural resource protection will largely depend on how well an
integrated culture of management is implemented. The goal of the IRMP is to put into place
such a planning system that will systematically involve all affected departments in order to
reduce potential conflicts between departments in achieving resource goals and objectives and
move managers towards common targets. This EA analyzes three alternatives that emphasize
interdisciplinary planning under 1) current land use, 2) an economic growth scenario, and 3) a
conservation scenario. The No Action Alternative is also analyzed and represents the status quo
of no formal interdisciplinary planning.
88
Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination

5.1. Planning Process / Schedule / Meetings
An interdisciplinary approach is being used to develop the Plan and interdepartmental
participation was solicited throughout the process for developing this IRMP. Information and
guidance was solicited from a variety of Tribal departments and groups. An IRMP
interdisciplinary Team was formed that consisted of key departmental personnel and individuals
from various groups that have an interest in the Reservation and the management of its natural
resources. Members of this ID Team represent the Water Resources Department; Fish & Wildlife
Department; Planning Department; Range Program; ARM Program; Cultural Resources; and.
This ID Team will ensure that information concerning the natural resources on or in the vicinity
of the Reservation is accurately accounted for and is managed in a way that is compatible with
local and regional management strategies.
In 1998, a Core Planning Team was formed to develop a new plan for sustainable growth, social
and economic development, and financial independence. The planning process began in 2001
with a series of community “scoping” meetings that resulted in the Draft Comprehensive Plan in
2005. As described in chapter 1, the EA for the IRMP was initiated to analyze the impact of
various management alternatives on resources and to provide a strategic planning level document
to guide management of the natural and cultural resources on the Reservation in an integrated
manner. In 2007 a Resolution was approved by the Fort Hall Business Council to begin the
planning process for the development of this EA and the IRMP. Prior to initiating the NEPA
process for the IRMP, several meetings were held to afford the public an opportunity to provide
input into the Comprehensive Plan development process (a summary of these efforts is contained
in the Comprehensive Plan). Information obtained during this process, as well as from internal
ID Team meetings, was used to develop a list of issues that needed to be addressed in the IRMP.
Interviews with individual programs and departments were held to gather baseline information
for the EA and to be carried into the Plan. During Winter of 2010 public involvement will occur
with the Draft EA available for public review and comment, and public meetings scheduled
throughout the Reservation.
5.2. Public Involvement

Public participation is provided for in the NEPA process to promote open communication and
better decision-making and is invited throughout the development of this IRMP. Public meetings
will be held once the Draft EA is released to solicit input and comments for the proposed plan.
A listing of the persons consulted in the preparation of the IRMP and copies of all agency
correspondence will be included in the Final IRMP, expected to be available in early 2010.
The public and concerned organizations will be notified of the findings and conclusions of this
EA by an announcement of the availability of a FONSI in the local newspapers and by the
availability of this IRMP for public review for 45 days before the Proposed Action is initiated.
The availability of the FONSI and the IRMP will be published in the local newspaper (i.e. the
Sho-Ban News, the Idaho State Journal and the Blackfoot News) and the documents will be
made available for public review at the BIA Fort Hall Agency Offices, the Tribal Library, the
Fish & Wildlife Department and at the Administrative Offices in the Tribal Business Center.
89
5.3. Interdisciplinary Team Members (Preparers)

This EA was prepared under the direction of the Environmental Program and in cooperation with
the ID Team. The ID team consisted of the following individuals:
 Yvette Tuell, Environmental Coordinator
 Elese Teton, Tribal Water Resource Director
 John Norstog, Planning Director
 Bill Snapp, ARM Program Director
 Angelo Gonzales, Executive Director
 Angela Mendez, Health Director
 Arnold Appeney, Land Use Director
 Hunter Osborne, Fish & Wildlife Director (Interim)
 Mark Wadsworth, Range Program Manager
 Carolyn Smith, Cultural Resource Coordinator
 Lorraine Shay, Housing Director
 Wes Jones, Emergency Management Response Director

The following individuals participated in the preparation of this document:

 JoEtta Buckhouse Tribal DOE/Cultural Resources
 Dan Christopherson Wildlife Program
 Chad Colter Fish & Wildlife Department
 Jace Fahnestock NEPA, North Wind, Inc.
 Kelly Green NEPA, North Wind, Inc.
 Danielle Gunn University of Idaho Extension Office, Fort Hall
 Hal Hayball GIS/LIS Program, SBT
 Tom Liddil Agriculture Resource Management Program, (former)
 Hunter Osborne Resident Fisheries Program, SBT
 Dan Stone Fish & Wildlife Department, SBT
 Reginald Thorpe Emergency Management Response (former)
 Roger Turner Air Quality Program, SBT
 Dr. LaNada War Jack Executive Director’s Office (former)
90
References
60 FR 35999. 1995. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final
Rule to Reclassify the Bald Eagle From Endangered to Threatened in All of the Lower 48
States. USFWS.
64 FR 36453. 1999. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Proposed Rule To Remove the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. USFWS.
65 FR 76203. 2000. Finding of Attainment for PM-10; Portneuf Valley PM-10 Nonattainment
Area, Idaho. Federal Register: December 6, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 235) Proposed
Rules.
Bannock Ecological. 2007. Woodland Management Plan for the Fort Hall Reservation.
Bechtel Environmental, Inc. 1994. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Preliminary Site
Characterization Summary for the Eastern Michaud Flat Site. Unpublished Report.
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2002. EA for Wildland Fuels Reduction Program on the Fort
Hall Indian Reservation. Prepared by Fire Logistics, Inc., May 2000. Revised by June
Boynton, BIA, Northwest Region, April 2002.
Cates, K. 2007. Personal communication related to the IRMP. District Conservationist, Fort
Hall NRCS Office, Fort Hall, Idaho.
Christopherson, D. 2007. Personal Communication. Wildlife Biologist, Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes.
Davis, C. 2007. Survey for Ute Lady’s Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) for the Fort Hall Historic
Landmark Bank Stabilization Project. Prepared for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and
Bureau of Reclamation. Fort Hall Idaho.
D’Azevedo, W.L. 1986. Editor, Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 11, Great
Basin. Washington D.C.: The Smithsonian Institution.
Elliott, J.C., and P. Sawyer. May 2002. Environmental Assessment Forest Management Fort
Hall Indian Reservation. Prepared for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, Idaho.
Ehrhart, R., and P. Hansen. 1998. Successful strategies for grazing cattle in riparian zones.
Montana BLM Riparian Technical Bulletin No. 4.
Gillihan, S.W. 2006. Sharing the land with pinyon-juniper birds. Partners in Flight Western
Working Group. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Halliday, J. and G. Chehak. 1996. Native Peoples of the Northwest; A Traveler's Guide to
Land, Art, and Culture. In cooperation with the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians.
Sasquatch Books, Seattle, WA.
IDEQ 2004. Portneuf Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan,
Maintenance Plan, and Redesignation Request. Prepared by: Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality, Pocatello Regional Office, Pocatello, Idaho. May 2004.
http://www.deq.state.id.us/air/data_reports/reports/portneuf_valley/portneuf_valley_SIP_plan
_draft_2004.pdf
91
Lewis, L. and C. R. Wegner. 1998. Idaho’s Canada Lynx: Pieces of the Puzzle. Tech. Bull. 98-
11. Boise, Idaho: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State
Office. 19 p.
Madsen, B.G. 1985. The Shoshoni Frontier and the Bear River Massacre. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
Mariah Associates, Inc. 1986. Environmental Assessment Report, Gay Mine Expansion Area
Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho. Unpublished report prepared for J.R. Simplot Company
and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board (NPAIHB). 2007. Information about Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes.
http://www.npaihb.org/profiles/tribal_profiles/Idaho/Shoshone_Bannock.htm
Parry, M. T. 1976. Massacre at Boa Ogoi. In Madsen, 1985.
Paulin, K.M., J.J. Cook, and S.R. Dewey. 1999. Pinyon-juniper woodlands as sources of avian
diversity. Pp. 240-243 in S.B. Monsen and R. Stevens, compilers. Proceedings: ecology and
management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West. USDA Forest Service
RMRS-P-9.
Ruediger, B. J. Claar, S. Mighton, B. Naney, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, A. Williamson, L.
Lewis, B. Holt, G. Patton, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, and S. Gniadek. 2000. Lynx Conservation
Assessment and Strategy. Interagency Publication.
Sampson, R., T. Stevenson, and J. Castro. 2001. The Snake River from Ferry Butte to American
Falls Reservoir: Changes and trends in stream form and function. Unpublished report
prepared by NRCS for Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, Idaho.
Schoolcraft. Encyclopedian of Idaho Indians Nations Treaties of the West.
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Draft Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Comprehensive Plan. Tribal
Planning Department, draft dated April 20, 2006.
Shoshone Bannock Tribes. 2007. Information about Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.
http://www.shoshonebannocktribes.com/fhbc.html
Taki, D. and D. Arthaud. 1993. Fort Hall Indian Reservation Stream Enhancement: Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes 1992 Annual Report to the Bonneville Power Administration, Project 92-10,
Portland Oregon.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). 2001. Snake River at Fort Hall, Idaho Bank Erosion Study.
Unpublished report prepared for the Shoshone and Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, Idaho.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. Census Bureau Quick Facts.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (USDA SCS), USDI BIA, and
University of Idaho College of Agriculture, Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station. 1977.
Soil Survey for the Fort Hall Area, Idaho, Parts of Bannock, Bingham, Caribou, and Power
Counties. http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscripts/ID710/0/id710_text.pdf
92
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2004. Understanding

Soil Risks and Hazards: Using Soil Survey to Identify Areas with Risks and Hazards to
Human Life and Property” Lincoln, NE: National Soil Survey Center.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Final Rule: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Determination of Endangered or Threatened Status for Five Aquatic Snails in South
Central Idaho.
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2007. Climate Summary Information.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu.
93
APPENDIX A – Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances

Relevant to the Shoshone Bannock Tribes
Below is a list – including brief summaries – of a number of the regulations that affect natural
resource management on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. This list is not meant to be all
inclusive. More detailed descriptions and complete lists of relevant regulations should be
contained in individual resource plans.
National Environmental Policy Act, 1969, 42 U.S.C 4321
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates that every federal agency prepare an
in-depth study of the impacts of “major federal actions having a significant effect on the
environment” and alternatives to those actions, and requiring that each agency make that
information an integral part of its decisions. NEPA also requires that agencies make a diligent
effort to involve the interested and affected public before they make decisions affecting the
environment.
Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA establish the
process by which federal agencies fulfill their obligations under the NEPA process. The CEQ
regulations contain the requirements for EAs and EISs that document the NEPA process. These
regulations also define such key terms as “cumulative impact,” “mitigation,” and “significantly”
to ensure consistent application of these terms in environmental documents.
National Indian Forest Resource Management Act of 1990 (PL 101-630)
The National Indian Forest Resource Management Act provides for the management of forested
tribal trust land and requires a management plan be developed for all forestry lands under the
jurisdiction of the BIA. The Tribes has contracted management of the Forest Program from the
BIA under the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act P.L. 93-638 process, and
therefore must ensure compliance with federal laws.
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, Public Law 93-638
The intent of Public Law 93-638 is to recognize that Tribes can have control over BIA-
administered programs. The law contains the Indian Self-Determination and Self-Governance
criteria for Tribes. These criteria require the BIA to offer Tribes the opportunity to contract all
programs within the Bureau (such as programs to administer health, housing, education, or
transportation).
Clean Water Act, 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251
The Clean Water Act (CWA) gives the EPA the authority to set effluent standards on an industry
basis and water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. Section 404 of the
CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of
the United States, including wetlands.
Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f
The Safe Drinking Water Act was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the U.S.
This law focuses on all waters actually or potentially designed for drinking use, whether from
above ground or underground sources.
94
Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management

This EO requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts associated
with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid development in floodplains
whenever there is a practical alternative.
Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands
This EO established the protection of wetlands and riparian systems as the official policy of the
federal government. It requires all federal agencies to consider wetland protection as an
important part of their policies and take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation
of wetlands and preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.
Fort Hall Water Rights Agreement, November 16, 1990, P.L. 101-602
The 1990 Agreement determined the rights of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to the use of water
in the upper Snake River Basin for the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Partial Final Consent Decree Determining the Rights of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to the
Use of Water in the Upper Snake River Basin, August 2, 1995
This Court Decree issued by the Snake River Basin Adjudication Court of the Fifth Judicial
District of the State of Idaho in and for the County of Twin Falls ratifies, confirms and authorizes
the water rights of the United States and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in the Upper Snake River
Basin for the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Water Resources Code, WATR-07-S1, May 11, 2007
The Water Code governs the regulation and protection of the Tribes’ water resources on the Fort
Hall Indian Reservation.
Groundwater Protection Act, WATR-02-S2, January 10, 2003
The Groundwater Protect Act was enacted to maintain the highest quality of ground water and
protect existing and future beneficial uses of ground water through the reduction or elimination
of the discharge of contaminants to the Fort Hall Indian Reservation’s ground water.
Well Construction Standards, WATR-02-S3, January 10, 2003
These standards were implemented for the regulation and licensing of water well contractors and
operators and for the regulation of water well construction and abandonment for the protection of
the health of the groundwater for public health, welfare, and safety of the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation residents.
Comprehensive Water Master Plan, January 31, 2006
This plan was developed in direct compliance with 1990 Fort Hall Water Rights Agreement to
provide the Tribal Water Resources Department with guidance regarding efficient practices for
using and regulating water resources on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The overall plan
includes sections on water conservation opportunities, drought planning, groundwater
monitoring and regulating, and future water development planning.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, PL 89-665, 80 Stat. 915, 16 USC§470
et seq., and 36 CFR 18, 60, 61, 63, 68, 79, 800
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires agencies to take into account the effects
of their actions on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP). The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has developed
implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), which allow agencies to develop agreements for
consideration of these historic properties. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to
95
take into account the effects of their undertakings on cultural resources, either listed in or eligible
to be listed in the NRHP, and afford the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), affiliated
American Indian tribes, individuals with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking, and the
general public, a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Public Law 96-515
amended NHPA and granted American Indian Tribes equal status with state and local
governments. This act was further amended in 1992 by the Fowler Bill that allows for inclusion
of Traditional Cultural Properties on the NRHP and establishment of Tribal Historic Preservation
Offices (THPO).
Antiquities Act of 1906, PL 59-209, 34 Stat. 225, 16 USC 432, and 43 CFR 3
This Act provides for the protection of historic or prehistoric remains, “or any antiquity,” on
federal lands. It protects historic monuments and ruins on public lands. This Act was
superseded by the Archeological Resources Protection Act (1979).
Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, PL 96-95, 93 Stat. 712, 16 USC 470aa et seq.,
25 CFR Part 262
This Act secures the protection of archeological resources on public or Indian lands and fosters
increased cooperation and exchange of information between private, government, and the
professional community in order to facilitate the enforcement and education of present and future
generations. It regulates excavation and collection on public and Indian lands. This act
established provisions for granting permits to conduct archaeological investigation on federal
lands and requires consultation with American Indian Tribes who may consider a site of religious
or cultural importance regarding archaeological investigations prior to the federal agency
issuance of a permit. The Act was amended in 1988 to require the development of plans for
surveying public lands for archeological resources and systems for reporting incidents of
suspected violations.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act, PL 95-341, 92 Stat. 469, 42 USC 1996
This Act declares policy to protect and preserve the inherent and constitutional right of the
American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiian people to believe, express, and exercise
their traditional religions. It requires federal agencies to examine the areas where their policies
and regulations affect religious freedoms of American Indians and provides that religious
concerns should be accommodated or addressed under NEPA or other appropriate statutes.
Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, 1990, PL 101-601, 104 Stat. 3049, 25
USC 3001-3013
This Act assigns ownership or control of Native American human remains, funerary objects,
sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony that are excavated or discovered on federal
lands or tribal lands and provides for the repatriation to lineal descendants or culturally affiliated
Native American groups. Federal agencies and institution must inventory their material culture
collections and consult with Indian Tribes or religious leaders concerning the repatriation of the
inventory material culture.
Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, May 13,
1971
This Executive Order instructs all federal agencies to support the preservation of cultural
properties. It directs them to identify and nominate cultural properties under their jurisdiction to
the NRHP and to “exercise caution…to assure that any federally owned property that might
qualify for nomination is not inadvertently transferred, sold, demolished, or substantially
96
altered.” In addition the EO calls for federal agencies to develop policies for the preservation of
all historic properties not owned or controlled by the federal government.
Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, 24 May 1996
this EO requires that agencies responsible for the management of Federal lands shall, to the
extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions,
accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious
practitioners and avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites.
Endangered Species Act, 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides for the listing and protection of endangered and
threatened species and their critical habitat. The ESA requires consultation with U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service under Section 7 if any listed species may be adversely affected.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 755, 16 U.S.C. 703-712
The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916 Convention between the United States and Great
Britain (for Canada) for the protection of migratory birds. Later amendments implemented
treaties between the United States and Mexico, Japan, and current day Russia. Specific
provisions in the statute include prohibition on killing of designated migratory birds.
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 718-718j, March 16, 1934,
as amended through 1988
This Act requires use of a migratory bird stamp for hunting, and raises funds for the conservation
of migratory waterfowl by the 1916 Migratory Bird Treaty between the U.S. and Canada.
Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 668a-d
This Act prohibits any form of possession or taking of both bald and golden eagles. The statute
imposes criminal and civil sanctions as well as an enhanced penalty provision for subsequent
offenses. The statute excepts from its prohibitions on possession the use of eagles or eagle parts
for exhibition, scientific, and Indian religious uses.
Lacey Act Amendments, November 16, 1981, 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378
These amendments repealed the Black Bass Act and sections 43 and 44 of the Lacey Act of
1900, replacing them with a single comprehensive statute. Under this law, it is unlawful to
import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants taken, possessed, transported, or
sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any
fish, wildlife, or plants taken possessed or sold in violation of state or foreign law.
Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act, 25 U.S.C. 3701
The purpose of this Act is to protect and restore the agronomic and rangeland resources on trust
lands and facilitate the development of renewable agricultural resources.
Conservation Reserve Programs 7CFR, Part 1410 and the Food Security Act of 1985, as
amended
The USDA Farm Service Agency's (FSA) Conservation Reserve Programs are voluntary
programs available to agricultural producers to help them safeguard environmentally sensitive
land. Producers enrolled in the programs plant long-term, resource-conserving covers to
improve the quality of water, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife habitat. In return, FSA
provides participants with rental payments and cost-share assistance.
97
BIA Grazing Regulations, 25 CFR, Part 166

These are the regulations that BIA uses to approve, grant, and administer a permit for grazing on
tribal land, individually owned Indian land, or government land.
Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species
This EO directs federal agencies to not authorize, fund, or carry out actions they believe are
likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species.
Indian Mineral Leasing Act, 25 U.S.C. 396a-g C.F.R. Part 211
This Act, as well as court precedent and agency policy, establishes the BIA as the primary
custodian of Indian mineral resources. Through secondary agreements and through policy
directives, other Federal agencies provide technical assistance and may act in an advisory role to
tribes.
Surface Mining and Control Reclamation Act, 30 U.S.C. 1201
This Act establishes a program for the regulation of surface mining activities under the
administration of the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, in the
Department of the Interior.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601
and 11001
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
commonly known as Superfund, established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed
and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of
hazardous waste at these sites; and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no
responsible party could be identified.
Clean Air Act, 1970, including 1977 and 1990 amendments; 42 U.S.C. 7401
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set
national health-based air quality standards to protect against common pollutants (e.g., ozone,
carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter) and national
standards for major new sources of pollution, including automobiles, trucks, and electric power
plants.
98
APPENDIX B – Wildlife and Culturally Significant Plant Species on

the Fort Hall Indian Reservation
Wildlife known to occur on the Reservation are listed in the first table and culturally and
traditionally important plant species known to occur on the Reservation are listed in the second
table.
WILDLIFE SPECIES
SPECIES HABITAT
SNAKES
Rubber boa (Charina bottae) Woodlands, forests, riparian, and meadows
Western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans) Near water
Common garter snake (Thamnophis siralis) Near water
Great Basin gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) Dryland habitats
Striped whipsnake (Masticophis taeniatus) Shrub steppe
Night snake (Hypsiglena torguata) Rocky slopes and outcrops
Western yellow-bellied racer (Coluber constrictor) Meadows, sage steppe
Sagebrush steppe, grasslands, and rock
Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridus)
outcrops
LIZARDS
Great Basin western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris) Shrub steppe
Desert collared lizard (Crotaphytus insularis) Rocky dry areas
Longnose leopard lizard (Gambella wislizenii) Sandy shrub steppe
Short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglasii) Sagebrush and juniper
Desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos) Shrub steppe
Sagebrush lizard (Sceloperous graciosus) Sagebrush and juniper
Western fence lizard (Sceloperous occidentalis) Rocky canyons and talus slopes
Side-blotched lizard (Uta stansbruiana) Sage steppe and juniper
Western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus) Moist, rocky areas
AMPHIBIANS
Western toad (Bufo boreas) All habitats
Great Basin spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus
Sagebrush steppe near water
intermontanus)
Striped chorus frog (Pseudacris triserata) Marshes, wooded areas, and grasslands
Northern leopard frog** (Rana pipens) Aquatic habitats
Tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) Sagebrush steppe and mountain forest
Long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) Aquatic habitats
SHREWS
Dusky shrew (Sorex monticolus) Forests and wet meadows
Water shrew (Sorex palustrus) Mountain streams
Vagrant shrew (Sorex vagrans) Moist areas at lower elevations
Masked shrew (Sorex cinereus) Riparian areas
Merriam's shrew (Sorex merriami) Sagebrush steppe
BATS
Long legged myotis (Myotis volans) Trees, crevices, and building
Small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) Crevices and buildings
Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) Open forests and rocky areas
Long eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Caves and forests
Silver-haired bat (Lasionmycteris noctivagans) Trees, crevices, and buildings
Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) Coniferous forest
99
Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) Caves, crevices, and buildings

Townsend's big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii) Caves, crevices, and buildings
RABBITS AND HARES
Pygmy rabbit** (Sylvilagus idahoensis) Sagebrush
Nutall's or mountain cottontail** (Sylvilagus nuttallii) Shrub steppe, rocky areas, and riparian areas
Snowshoe hare** (Lepus americanus) Forests
Black-tailed jackrabbit** (Lepus californicus) Sagebrush and shrub steppe
White-tailed jackrabbit** (Lepus townsendii) Grasslands and shrub steppe
MARMOTS
Yellow-bellied marmot** (Marmota flaviventris) Rocky areas
CHIPMUNKS
Least chipmunk (Tamias minimus) Sagebrush steppe
Yellow-pine chipmunk (Eutamias amoenus) Coniferous forests
GROUND SQUIRRELS
Uinta ground squirrel** (Spermophilus armatus) Sagebrush and grassland
Townsend's ground squirrel (Spermophilus townsendii) Shrub steppe
Golden-mantled ground squirrel (Spermophilus
Coniferous or mixed forests
lateralis)
TREE SQUIRRELS
Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) Coniferous and mixed forests
Fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) Mixed forests in towns and cities
Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) Coniferous or mixed forests
POCKET GOPHERS
Idaho pocket gopher (Thomomys idahoensis) Sagebrush steppe and meadows
BEAVERS
Beaver** (Castor canadensis) Taxidea taxus Streams, ponds, and riparian areas
MUSKRATS
Muskrat** (Ondatra zibethicus) Marshes, ponds, streams, and lakes
WOODRATS
Bushy-tailed woodrat (Neotoma cinerea) Coniferous forest
KANGAROO RATS
Ord’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ordii) Sandy areas
POCKET MICE
Great Basin pocket mouse (Perognathus parvus) Sagebrush steppe
HARVEST MICE
Western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) Weedy or grassy areas
GRASSHOPPER MICE
Northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster) Deserts and valleys
JUMPING MICE
Western jumping mouse (Zapus princeps) Wet meadows and riparian areas
WHITE FOOTED MICE
Deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) All habitats
OLD WORLD RATS AND MICE
Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) Human dwellings and cultivated fields
House mouse (Mus musculus) Urban areas and farm lands
VOLES
Long-tailed vole (Microtus longicaudus) Dry grassy areas, willows, and sedge areas
Meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) Moist grasslands
Montane vole (Microtus montanus) Grasslands
100
Southern red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi) Forests and bogs

Heather vole (Phenacomys intermedius) Mountaintop clearings
Sagebrush vole (Lagturus curtatus) Sagebrush and grass-sage communities
PORCUPINE
Porcupine** (Erethizon dorsatum) Cottonwood forests and riparian areas
CARNIVORES
Mountain lion (Puma concolor) Semiarid and mountain areas
Bobcat (Felis rufus) Rocky canyons
Black bear (Ursus americanus) Forests and mountain areas
Coyote (Canis latrans) All habitats
Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) Farm land
Marten (Martes americana) Coniferous forest
Cottonwood forest and sagebrush steppe near
Raccoon (Procyon lotor)
water
Ermine (Mustela erminea) Farm lands and riparian areas
Long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) Shrub steppe and farm lands
Mink (Mustela vison) Near streams, rivers, and lakes
Badger (Taxidea taxus) Farm lands and forests
Northern river otter (Lutra canadensis) Streams and lakes
Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) Riparian areas and farm lands
Western spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis) Farm lands near streams
UNGULATES
Elk** (Cervus elaphus) Sagebrush and mountain areas
Mule deer** (Odocoileus hemonius) All habitats
White-tailed deer** (Odocoilus virginianus) All habitats
Moose** (Alces alces) Mixed forests, marshes, and bogs
Pronghorn antelope** (Antilocapra americana) Sagebrush and grasslands
Bison (Bison bison) Forests, grasslands, and riparian areas
WATERFOWL
Canada goose (Branta canadensis) Riparian areas, lakes, and meadows
Snow goose (Chen caerulescens) Marshes
Green-winged teal (Anas crecca) Rivers, ponds, and lakes
Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) Rivers, ponds, and lakes
American coot (Fulica americana) Lakes, rivers, and ponds
Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) Lakes and rivers
Blue-winged teal (Anas discors) Rivers, ponds, and lakes
Cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera) Rivers, lakes, and ponds
Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata) Lakes and ponds
American widgeon (Anas americana) Rivers, ponds, and meadows
Wood duck (Aix sponsa) Lakes, ponds, and rivers
Greater scaup (Aythya marila) Large lakes and rivers
Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) Lakes, rivers, and ponds
Ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris) Lakes, rivers, and ponds
Barrow's goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) Rivers, ponds, and lakes
Common goldeneye (Bucephala elangula) Rivers, lakes, and ponds
Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) Lakes and ponds
Pintail (Anas acuta) Lakes and ponds
Gadwall (Anas strepera) Lakes and ponds
Canvasback (Aythya yalisineria) Marshes, ponds, and lakes
Redhead (Aythya americana) Marshes, lakes, and rivers
Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) Lakes and ponds
101
Tundra swan (Cygnus colombianus) Lakes, marshes, and slow streams

Rudy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) Marshes and lakes
Common merganser (Mergus merganser) River, ponds, and lakes
Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) Rivers, lakes, and ponds
Hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) Ponds and lakes
GREBES
Western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis) Lakes and ponds
Pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) Lakes and ponds
Eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) Lakes and ponds
Horned grebe (Podiceps aurtis) Lakes, marshes, and slow rivers
PELICANS AND CORMORANTS
White pelican (Pelecanus erythorhynchos) Lakes and ponds
Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) Lakes and rivers
IBIS
White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) Marshes, ponds, and lakes
LOONS
Arctic loon (Gavia artica) Lakes and rivers
Common loon (Gavia immer) Lakes
GULLS AND TERNS
Franklin's gull (Larus pipixcan) Lakes
Ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis) Pools
California gull (Larus californicus) Pools
Bonaparte's gull (Larus philidelphia) Mudflats, marshes, and rivers
Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) Lakes and rivers
Common tern (Sterna hirundo) Lakes and rivers
Forester's tern (Sterna forsteri) Marshes and rivers
Black tern (Childonias niger) Marshes, wet meadows, and rivers
HERONS, BITTERNS, AND EGRETS
Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) Riparian areas, meadows, rivers, and ponds
American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) Marshes
Great egret (Casmerodius albus) Marshes and shallow lakes with trees
Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) Marshes and lakes
Snowy egret (Egretta thula) Marshes and lakes
Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) Marshes, lakes, and slow rivers
SHOREBIRDS
Lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) Ponds, marshes, and mudflats
Greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) Marshes, ponds, and mudflats
Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) Marshes
Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Pastures, grasslands, and fields
Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) Marshes, mudflats, and pastures
Marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa) Marshes
Western sandpiper (Caldris mauri) Mudflats and lake shores
Least sandpiper (Caldris minutilla) Mudflats and lake shores
Baird's sandpiper (Caldris bairdii) Grassy marshes and mudflats
Pectoral sandpiper (Caldris melanotos) Wet meadows, mudflats, and lakeshores
Solitary sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) Ponds, streams, and marshes
Spotted sandpiper (Actitis maculara) Rivers and lakes
Semipalmated sandpiper (Calidris pusilla) Mudflats, lake and pond shores
Stilt sandpiper (Calidris himantopous) Mudflats and lake shores
Rudy turnstone (Arenaria interpres) Mudflats and lake shores
102
Redknot (Calidris canutus) Mudflats and lake shores

Sanderling (Calidris alba) Mudflats and lake and river shores
Dunlin (Calidris alpina) Mudflats, marshes, and pond and lake shores
STILTS AND AVOCETS
Blacknecked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) Lakes and ponds
American avocet (Recurvirostra americana) Ponds, lakes, and mudflats
SNIPE AND DOWITCHERS
Common snipe (Capella galinago) Riparian areas and meadows
Long-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus) Marshes and lake and pond shores
Short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus) Mudflats and lake and pond shores
PLOVERS
Black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola) Pond and lake shores
Lesser Golden plover (Pluvialis dominica) Grasslands, pastures, and mudflats
Semipalmated plover (Chadadrius semipalmatus) Mudflats, marshes, and lake and pond shores
Snowy plover (Chadrius alexandrinus) Mudflats, marshes, and lake and pond shores
River, pond, and lake shorelines and
Killdeer (Chadrius vociferus)
agricultural areas
PHALAROPES
Wilson's phalarope (Steganopus tricolor) Pond, river, and lake shore lines
Northern phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus) Mudflats and lakes
CRANES
Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) Riparian areas and meadows
RAILS
Sora (Porzana carolina) Marshes
Virginia rail (Rallus limicola) Marshes
American coot (Fulica americana) Lakes, ponds, and marshes
RAPTORS
Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) Dry open country
Bald eagle** (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Rivers, riparian areas, and lakes
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) Rivers, riparian areas, and lakes
Range, mountain brush, riparian areas, and
Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)
ponds
Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) Riparian areas, fields, and forests
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Riparian areas, fields, and forests
Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Riparian areas, fields, and forests
Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Range and agricultural areas
Red-tailed hawk** (Buteo jamaicensis) Range and agricultural areas
Rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus) Range and agricultural areas
Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Range
Golden eagle** (Aquila chrysaetos) Range, cliffs, and riparian areas
American kestrel (Falco sparverius) Range, meadow, and agricultural areas
Merlin (Falco columarius) Range, meadow, and agricultural areas
Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) Range and agricultural areas
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Range, riparian areas, and meadows
Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) Range, lakes, and agricultural areas
Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) Conifers, forest clearings, and alpine meadows
Pygmy owl (Glaucidium gnoma) Mixed conifer and aspen woods
Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) Coniferous forests
Great horned owl (Bubo virginanus) Cottonwoods, agricultural areas, and range
Long-eared owl (Asio otus) Riparian trees and brush
103
Northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus) Coniferous or deciduous woods

Barn owl (Tyto alba) Shrub steppe, meadows, and agricultural areas
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Shrub steppe and grasslands
Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) Grasslands, meadows, and marshes
DOVES
Rock dove (Columba livia) Rivers and cliffs
Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) Range and meadows
NIGHTJARS
Poor will (Phalaenoplilus nuttallii) Sagebrush
Common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) Range, ponds, and meadows
HUMMINGBIRDS
Black-chinned hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri) Meadows and brush
Rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) Meadow, range, and coniferous forest
Calliope hummingbird (Stellula caliope) Forest clearings and alpine meadows
KINGFISHERS
Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcycon) Rivers, lakes, and riparian areas
WOODPECKERS
Northern three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) Coniferous forests
Lewis's woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) Cottonwoods and riparian areas
Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) Cottonwoods and riparian areas
Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) Cottonwoods and riparian areas
Northern flicker** (Colaptes auratus) Cottonwoods and riparian areas
Williamson's sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus) Cottonwoods and riparian areas
Red-naped sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis) Aspen and coniferous forests
JAYS, MAGPIES, AND CROWS
Scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) Scrub and woodlands
Gray jay (Perisoreus canadensis) Coniferous forests
Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) Stands of juniper or pines near tree line
Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) Cottonwoods and juniper
Black-billed magpie (Pica pica) Agricultural areas and range
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Cottonwoods and agricultural areas
Juniper, cliffs, agricultural areas, and
Common raven (Corvus corvax)
coniferous forest
SHRIKES
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Shrub steppe
Northern shrike (Lanius excubitor) Shrub steppe and farm lands
FLYCATCHERS
Dusky flycatcher (Empidonax oberholseri) Coniferous forest
Hammond’s flycatcher (Empidonax hammondii) Coniferous forest
Say’s phoebe (Sayornis says) Dry sparsely vegetated country
Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus borealis) Woodlands
Western wood-pewee (Contopus sordidulus) Riparian areas and woodlands
Western flycatcher (Empidonax difcillis) Forests
Ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens) Shrub steppe and juniper
Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) Riparian areas, willows, and meadows
Eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) Range, riparian areas, and meadows
Shrub steppe, agricultural areas, and riparian
Western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis)
areas
LARKS
Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) Range
104
SWALLOWS
Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) Aspen, riparian areas, meadows, and cliffs
Violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina) Cliffs, rivers, and riparian areas
Northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx
Cliffs and riparian areas
ruficollis)
Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) Riparian areas and meadows
Cliff swallow (Hirunda pyrrhonota) Cliffs and riparian areas
Barn swallow (Hirnudo rustica) Range and riparian areas
CHICKADEES AND TITMICE
Black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus) Aspen, riparian areas, and meadows
Mountain chickadee (Parus gambeli) Douglas-fir
Plain titmouse (Parus inornatus) Juniper woodlands
CREEPERS
Brown creeper (Certha familiaris) Deciduous forest
NUTHATCHES
Red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) Deciduous forest
White-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) Deciduous forest and brush
Pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) Douglas-fir
DIPPERS
American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) Riparian areas, meadows, and rivers
WRENS
House wren (Troglodytes aedon) Brushy areas, deciduous forests, and willows
Rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus) Rocky slopes
Canyon wren (Catherpes mexicanus) Cliffs and rocky canyons
Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) Marshes
KINGLETS, BLUEBIRDS, AND THRUSHES
Ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) Riparian areas and meadows
Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) Riparian areas and bushy areas
Mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides) Range, aspen, and agricultural areas
Western bluebird (Sialia mexicana) Range and meadows
Veery (Catharus fuscescens) Riparian areas and forests
Swainson's thrush (Catharus ustulatus) Riparian areas and forests
Hermit thrush (Catharus guttata) Riparian areas and forests
American robin (Turdus migratorius) Deciduous forest, riparian areas, and meadows
Townsend’s solitaire (Mydestes townsendi) Riparian areas and forests
Varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius) Montane coniferous forest
VIREOS
Solitary vireo (Vireo solitarius) Deciduous forest
Warbling vireo (Vireo gilvas) Aspen
Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) Deciduous woodlands and parks
WAXWINGS
Cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) Open woodlands
Bohemian waxwing (Bombycilla garrulus) Open woodlands
WARBLERS
Orange-crowned warbler (Vermivora celata) Forests
Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) Aspen, Douglas-fir, and willows
Yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata) Open areas in coniferous forests
Wilson's warbler (Wilsonia pusilla) Shrubs, alpine-willow-fir thickets
Townsend's warbler (Dendroica townsendi) Douglas-fir
MacGillivray's warbler (Oporonis tolmiei) Douglas-fir, riparian areas, and meadows
105
Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) Riparian areas and meadows

Virginia's warbler (Vermivora virginiae) Juniper
Nashville warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla) Open deciduous woodlands
Black and white warbler (Mniotila varia) Mixed forest
American redstart (Setophaga ruticlla) Mixed forest
Common yellowthroat (Geothypis trichas) Marshes
Black-throated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens) Shrubby openings in coniferous or mixed forest
BLACKBIRDS, MEADOWLARKS, AND ORIOLES
Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) Marshes and agricultural areas
Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) Aspen and agricultural areas
Yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus
Marshes, lakes, and meadows
xanthocephalus)
Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) Agricultural areas and riparian areas
European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) Agricultural areas, towns, and open woodlands
Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) Range and meadows
Northern oriole (Icterus galbula) Riparian areas and meadows
Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) Agricultural areas and woodlands
TANAGERS
Western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana) Mixed woodlands
BUNTINGS AND GROSBEAKS
Lazuli bunting (Passerina amoena) Mountain brush and Douglas-fir
Lark bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys) Sagebrush steppe
Snow bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis) Grasslands and stubble fields
Pine grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator) Coniferous forest
Aspen, Douglas-fir, riparian areas, and
Black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus)
meadows
Evening grosbeak (Hesperiphona vespertina) Forests
CROSSBILLS
Red crossbill (Lavia curvirasta) Forests, riparian areas, and meadows
SPARROWS AND TOWHEES
Rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) Brush
Green-tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus) Sagebrush and juniper
Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) Grasslands
Lincoln's sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) Mountain meadows
Chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina) Aspen, riparian areas, and meadows
Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) Riparian areas and meadows
White-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophryus) Shrub steppe and willows
Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri) Sagebrush and alpine meadows
Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwhichensis) Range, grasslands, and fields
Fox sparrow (Passerell iliaca) Riparian areas and woodlands
Vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) Meadows and range
Coniferous forest, suburban gardens, and
Oregon junco (Junco hyemalis)
roadsides
Gray-headed junco (Junco caniceps) Coniferous forest and aspen
Lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) Shrub steppe
Sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli) Sagebrush steppe
American tree sparrow (Spizella arborea) Fence rows and weedy fields
Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) Flooded meadows and alfalfa fields
House sparrow (Passer domesticus) Farm lands, fields, and woodlands
FINCHES
Lapland longspur (Calcarius lapponicus) Meadows and fields
106
Black rosy finch (Leucosticte atrata) Alpine meadows

Gray crowned rosy finch (Leucosticte tephrocotis) Alpine meadows
Pine siskin (Carduelis pinus) Coniferous forest
American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) Aspen, riparian areas, and meadows
Cassin's finch (Carpodacus cassinii) Coniferous forest
Purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus) Tall shrubs
House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) Shrub steppe
Common redpoll (Carduelis flammea) Woodlands and fence rows
MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS
Gray catbird (Dumetella carolinenis) Dense shrub
Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) Shrub steppe and farm lands
Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Sagebrush steppe
WAGTAILS AND PIPITS
Water pipit (Anthus spinoletta) Lake and river shorelines
GALLINACEOUS BIRDS
Gray partridge (Perdix perdix) Farm lands with shrubs
Shrub steppe, grasslands, and agricultural
Ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus)
areas
Greater sage grouse** (Centrocercus urophasianus) Sagebrush steppe
Sharp-tailed grouse** (Tympanuchus phasianellus) Grasslands and agricultural areas with cover
Chukar (Alectoris chukar) Arid mountainous areas and canyons
Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) Deciduous and coniferous forest
Blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) Subalpine forest clearings
Wild turkey (Meleagris gallapavo) Open woodlands
**Culturally Significant Wildlife Species
VASCULAR PLANTS
COMMON NAME SPECIES
Maple Acer spp.
Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides
Giant hyssop Agastache spp.
Wild onion Allium spp.
Serviceberry Amelanchier spp.
Dogbane Apocynum spp.
Sagebrush or Sage Artemisia spp.
Aster Aster spp.
Balsamroot Balsamorhiza spp.
Water birch Betula occidentalis
Sego lily Calochortus spp.
Sedge Carex spp.
Goosefoot Chenopodium spp.
Thistle (native) Cirsium spp.
Redosier dogwood Cornus sericea
Spring parsley Cymopterus spp.
Wildrye Elymus spp.
Buckwheat Eriogonum spp.
Strawberry Fragaria spp.
Fritillary Fritillaria spp.
Sunflower Helianthus spp.
107
VASCULAR PLANTS
COMMON NAME SPECIES
Juniper Juniperus spp.
Wildrye Leymus spp.
Desert parsley Lomatium spp.
Creeping Oregon grape Mahonia repens
Oniongrass Melica bulbosa
Wild mint Mentha arvensis
Coyote tobacco Nicotiana attenuate
Plains pricklypear Opuntia polyacantha
Great Basin Indian potato Orogenia linearifolia
Yampa Perideridia spp.
Pine Pinus spp.
Narrowleaf cottonwood Populus angustifolia
Aspen Populus tremuloides
Common chokecherry Prunus virginiana
Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata
Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii
Lemonade sumac Rhus triolobata
Current Ribes spp.
Wild rose Rosa spp.
Wild raspberry Rubus spp.
Willow Salix spp.
Elderberry Sambucus spp.
Common cattail Typha latifolia
Huckleberry Vaccinium spp.
Tobacco root Valeriana edulis
FUNGI
Puffballs Clavatia spp.
Morels Morchella spp.
Oyster mushroom Pleurotus spp.
108

Draft Environmental Assessment

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Draft Environmental Assessment

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DRAFT

January 26, 2010

Available for Public Review and Comment from

February ____, 2010 to March ____, 2010.

Contact information: Yvette Tuell, Environmental Program

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF THE

Environmental Program Director Land Use Director

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Team Lead shall be Yvette Tuell, Environmental

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all Tribal departments and programs shall be

Dated this 27th Day of December 2006.

Alonzo A. Coby, Chairman

Aldene J. Pevo, Tribal Secretary

Reviewed and Recommended for Approval by:

3.9.3. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 72

Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

Figure 1. Levels of Planning.

STRATEGIC PLAN Integrated Resource Management Plan

Forest Water Grazing

PROJECT OR Project or Project or Project or

1.2. Relationship to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Comprehensive Plan

Figure 2. Project Location.

1.4. Purpose and Need

1.5. Relevant Laws/Treaties/Governance

1.6. Decisions to be Made

1.7. Trust Responsibility

1.8. Issue Identification

and regulations would need to be adhered to in their construction. Because management

Fishing/Hunting Mineral Extraction

2.1. Alternative Development

Shoshone-Bannock Tribal DRAFT Goals

 Support achievement of Tribal goals

Four alternatives were carried forward for analysis:

2.2 Resource Specific Goals Common to all Alternatives

2.3. Alternative A – No Action Alternative

2.4. Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative

2.5. Alternative C – Growth Alternative

Figure 5. Land Use and Zoning under the Growth Alternative.

2.6. Alternative D – Restoration Alternative

Figure 6. Land Use and Zoning under the Restoration Alternative.

2.7. Implementation, Monitoring and Amendment Process

2.8. Comparison of Alternatives

Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives.

Parameter / No Action Proposed Action Growth Restoration

Approximate Land Use (acres)a

Chapter 3 – Existing Environment

Survival of human kind and the environment is mutually dependent

Following a general description of the Reservation landscape, a History section is included

3.2. General Setting/Landscape

3.4. Government/Tribal Management

3.6. Land Use Policy

3.7. Land Use

Table 2. Range Units on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.

Figure 7. Location of the Fort Hall Bottoms within the Reservation.

3.7.4. Commercial Areas

3.7.5. Rural/Residential Development

3.8. Physical Resources

Tribal Policy Statement on Air Quality

3.8.2.3. Nearly Level to Very Steep Wind-Deposited Soils on Low Plateaus

and have an accumulation of carbonates between depths of 10 and 35 inches. Vegetation is

3.8.2.6. Moderately Sloping to Very Steep Soils on Mountains

Mission Statement of the Tribal Water Resources Department

3.8.3.1. Blackfoot River Basin

3.8.3.2. Ross Fork Basin

3.8.3.3. Portneuf River Basin

February , 2010 to March , 2010.