Executive Summary 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Volume 1: Executive Summary 

Table of Contents 

Volume 1: Executive Summary 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1
 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1
 

Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................ 1
 

Planning Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 2
 

Consultation and Coordination .............................................................................................................. 2
 

Alternatives................................................................................................................................................ 2
 

The Preferred Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 3
 

Differences Among Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 4
 

Affected Environment.............................................................................................................................. 26
 

Vegetation (Upland and Riparian) ....................................................................................................... 26
 

Livestock Grazing................................................................................................................................ 29
 

Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 29
 

Energy Development........................................................................................................................... 30
 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) ............................................................................. 31
 

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................................ 33
 

Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................................................ 41
 

List of Tables 

Table ES- 1. Acres, S-Class Similarity, and FRCC Rating for PNVGs by VMA ......................................... 27
 

Table ES- 2. Fire Rate of Spread Rating by VMA ...................................................................................... 27
 

Table ES- 3. Post-Fire and Baseline Vegetation Composition in the Planning Area by VSG (Percent) .... 28
 

TOC-i August 2010 
Volume 1: Executive Summary Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Table of Contents 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

August 2010 TOC-ii 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Executive Summary 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The purpose of the Jarbidge Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

(RMP/EIS) is to provide direction for managing public lands in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Jarbidge Field Office (FO) for the next 15 to 20 years. The approved plan will provide the framework for 

making decisions about managing resources, resource uses, and special designations within the planning 

area. 

The planning area boundary coincides with the boundary of the BLM Jarbidge FO. The boundary extends 

from the Bruneau River on the west to Salmon Falls Creek on the east, and from the Snake River on the 

north to the northern boundaries of the BLM Elko FO and the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest on the 

south (Map 1). It includes parts of Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls Counties in south-central Idaho and 

Elko County in northern Nevada. Although these counties have a combined population of approximately 

160,000 (US Census Bureau, 2009), Hot Springs, Indian Cove, Murphy Hot Springs, Three Creek, and 

Roseworth are the only communities within the planning area; all have populations of less than 100 

people. The majority of the planning area supports sagebrush steppe and seeded grasslands, mostly 

from fire rehabilitation projects. 

Introduction 

An RMP guides land and resource management decisions for land managed by the BLM. The 

preparation and adoption of an RMP by BLM is a Federal action subject to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). NEPA requires that an EIS be prepared for any Federal action 

that may significantly affect the human environment. 

The Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS describes and analyzes a reasonable range of management alternatives for 

the public lands and resources managed by the BLM Twin Falls District, Jarbidge FO in south-central 

Idaho and northern Nevada. Within the planning area, BLM manages approximately 1,374,000 acres of 

public land surface (Map 1) and 1,613,000 acres of Federal mineral estate (Map 2) in Elmore, Twin Falls, 

and Owyhee Counties in Idaho and Elko County in Nevada. Decisions made and management direction 

described in the Jarbidge RMP apply to land and resources in the planning area according to BLM’s 

administrative authority and responsibility for those lands and resources. Management direction includes: 

long- and short-term goals, objectives, management actions, resource use allocation decisions, mitigation 

to reduce impacts of authorized uses, and the means for assessing the effectiveness of management 

actions and mitigation. 

Purpose and Need

The purpose of an RMP is to provide management direction for Federal land and resources managed by 

the BLM while maintaining consistency with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA), which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber 

from the public lands and, where appropriate, preserves and protects lands in their natural condition; 

provides food and habitat for fish, wildlife, and domestic animals; and provides for outdoor recreation, 

human occupancy and use, while observing the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. 

A 2001 evaluation of the 1987 Jarbidge RMP (BLM, 2001) identified a need for new or revised decisions 

for several resource management activities and recommended a plan revision to achieve consistency 

with tribal, Federal, State, and local agency plans and with BLM policy. A revision is also needed to 

address new information and changed circumstances with respect to resource conditions and demands 

for resource uses. Completion of an RMP revision will satisfy a portion of the Stipulated Settlement 

Agreement (SSA) entered into by parties affiliated with Western Watersheds Project v. K Lynn Bennett, 

et. al. (CV-04-181-S-BLW), United States District Court, District of Idaho (Appendix A). 

The purpose of the Jarbidge RMP revision is to provide appropriate management direction for the Twin 

Falls District, Jarbidge FO that responds to the 2001 evaluation (BLM, 2001), new information, changes in 

resource condition and user demands and the SSA while maintaining consistency with FLPMA. 

ES-1 August 2010 
	 


 

	 

	 


 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Executive Summary	 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Planning Issues 

The following planning issues were identified through scoping and used to develop the Jarbidge Draft 

RMP/EIS:
 

 Vegetation (Upland and Riparian) 

o	 Fuels treatments, fire rehabilitation, and fire suppression 

o	 Habitat for fish, wildlife, and special status plants and animals 

o Livestock forage 

 Livestock Grazing 

 Recreation 

 Energy Development 

 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

Consultation and Coordination 

BLM consulted with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes in development of the 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS. BLM also participated in intergovernmental and interagency coordination and 

conducted briefings and presentations for interested stakeholders. 

Alternatives 

Chapter 2 discusses the alternatives that describe different approaches for management of the resources 

and uses managed by the BLM in the Jarbidge FO. This chapter begins with an explanation of the 

alternative development process. Each alternative is a complete and reasonable set of desired future 

conditions based upon:
 

 Resource management goals and objectives, 

 Management actions to meet goals and objectives, and, where appropriate,
 

 The allocations of land and resources to facilitate multiple resource management. 

These components of each alternative are integral in guiding future management of the public land 

resources and uses in the planning area. 

Six management alternatives (the No Action Alternative and five “action” alternatives) are presented in 

detail in this chapter and provide a range of choices for achieving the purpose and need, meeting the 

multiple-use mandate of FLPMA, and resolving the planning issues identified in Chapter 1:
 

	 The No Action Alternative continues to implement the objectives and management actions provided 

in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP and its amendments. Lands in poor ecological condition would be 

improved, while lands in good and excellent ecological condition in the Bruneau River-Sheep Creek 

and Jarbidge River Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) would be maintained. Vegetation treatments 

could use native or non-native species. The majority of the planning area would remain available for 

resource uses, including livestock grazing, cross-country motorized vehicle use, and land use 

authorizations. 

	 Alternative I focuses on enhancing and sustaining existing and historic uses of the planning area. 

This alternative would have the largest component of active recreation management, including 

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) for motorized recreation, hunting and fishing, hiking, 

and water-based recreation. Livestock grazing would be maintained near 2009 levels. This alternative 

would focus more on implementing management to benefit mule deer than other alternatives. 

Restoration projects would focus on providing habitat for mule deer and special status species, 

including treatments in some non-native perennial communities. Annual communities would also be a 

focus for vegetation treatments. Vegetation treatments could use native or non-native species 

depending on vegetation objectives. Reducing the amount of wildland fire in the planning area would 

be addressed through treatments to move vegetation toward Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 1, 

treatments for noxious weeds and invasive plants, and construction of fuel breaks. 

	 Alternative II focuses on increasing commercial uses throughout the planning area. Livestock 

grazing would be increased substantially. Non-native perennial communities would be actively 

maintained for livestock, and treatments in non-native annual communities would focus on converting 

August 2010	 ES-2 
	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Executive Summary 

these areas to a non-native, more fire-tolerant, forage-producing perennial community. Native plant 

communities would be maintained. Other commercial uses, including energy development, would be 

allowed throughout most areas and have the fewest restrictions compared to the other alternatives. 

Vegetation treatments could use native or non-native species depending on vegetation and resource 

use objectives. Reducing the amount of wildland fire in the planning area would be addressed 

through treatments to move native vegetation toward FRCC 1, treatments for noxious weeds and 

invasive plants, construction of fuel breaks, and fuels reduction through increased permitted livestock 

grazing. 

	 Alternative III focuses on restoring the resiliency of ecosystem structure and function through 

intensive management of fuels and enhanced fire suppression capabilities throughout the planning 

area. This alternative would provide for the highest amount of fuels treatments. Non-native perennial 

plant communities would be actively managed to contribute to wildland fire prevention and 

suppression efforts, including increased levels of permitted livestock grazing. Treatments of annual 

communities would focus on converting these areas to a non-native perennial fire-tolerant community. 

Native plant communities would be restored to move toward their historic fire regime; intensive fuels 

reduction measures may be taken to manage native plant communities. Vegetation treatments may 

use both native and non-native species, with fire-tolerant and fire-resistant species having a high 

priority. Other uses would be allowed to the extent they do not contribute to an increase in wildland 

fire size and intensity. The quality and quantity of infrastructure such as roads and water would be 

increased to support fire suppression activities more in this alternative than in other alternatives. 

	 Alternative IV focuses on actively restoring the resiliency of ecosystem structure and function 

through restoration projects and managing uses. Priorities would be to treat at-risk or fragmented 

habitats and non-native perennial and annual communities. This alternative would provide for active 

restoration using more tools and more intensive approaches in more areas than in Alternative V. 

Vegetation treatments could use native or non-native species depending on vegetation objectives. 

Reducing the amount of wildland fire in the planning area would be addressed through treatments to 

move vegetation toward FRCC 1, treatments for noxious weeds and invasive plants, and construction 

of fuel breaks. Alternative IV has been split into two sub-alternatives. The only difference between the 

sub-alternatives is the size of the Inside Desert and Jarbidge Foothills Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACECs); these ACECs would have larger boundaries in Alternative IV-A than in Alternative 

IV-B. Differences between Alternatives IV-A and IV-B also appear in sections in which ACEC 

management is a factor. 

	 Alternative V focuses on the restoration of habitats toward historic vegetation communities. In native 

plant communities, passive restoration approaches would be preferred. Active restoration would take 

place in non-native perennial and annual communities; treatments in non-native perennial 

communities would minimize soil disturbance. Restoration projects would focus on habitat for sagegrouse and other special status species as well as special designations. Vegetation treatments would 

use only native species. Reducing the amount of wildland fire in the planning area would be 

addressed through treatments to move vegetation toward FRCC 1, treatments for noxious weeds and 

invasive plants, and construction of fuel breaks. 

Each alternative, as developed, provides a different emphasis for managing public lands and resources 

within the planning area, and each action alternative represents a complete and reasonable land use plan 

that meets the purpose and need described in Chapter 1. 

The Preferred Alternative 

The BLM used the impact analysis, along with knowledge of specific issues raised throughout the 

planning process, recommendations from the tribes, cooperating agencies, and BLM resource specialists, 

consideration of planning criteria, and anticipated resolution of resource conflicts to select Alternative IV 

as the Preferred Alternative. When differences are specified between Sub-Alternatives IV-A and IV-B, 

Alternative IV-B is the Preferred Alternative. Selection of the Preferred Alternative was based on the 

following criteria: 

 Satisfaction of statutory requirements 

 Achievement of BLM goals and policies 

 Achievement of the purpose and need 

ES-3 August 2010 
 

Executive Summary Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Provision of an acceptable approach to addressing key planning issues 

 Consideration of cooperating agencies and BLM specialists’ recommendations 

The Preferred Alternative indicates the agency’s preliminary preference. However, identification of this 

alternative as Preferred does not represent a final BLM decision and may change between publication of 

the Draft and Final EIS based on comments received on the Draft EIS, new information, or changes in 

BLM policies or priorities. The Proposed RMP may reflect changes or adjustments and may include 

objectives and actions described as portions of other analyzed alternatives based on information received 

during public comment on the Draft RMP/EIS, new information, or changes in BLM policies or priorities. 

BLM has the discretion to select an alternative in its entirety or to combine aspects of the various 

alternatives presented in this draft to develop the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. 

Differences Among Alternatives

The following table identifies differences among the alternatives for each of the planning issues. 

Chapter 2 contains the full suite of management actions for each alternative. 

August 2010 ES-4 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ES-5 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Vegetation (Upland and Riparian) Fuels Treatments, Fire Rehabilitation, and Fire Suppression No goal stated. Goal WFM-CA-G- 1. Fire management strategies would result in firefighter and public safety 

cultural resources, while considering suppression and rehabilitation costs. 

and protectio

No objective stated. Objective WFM-I-O- 1. 

Strive to reduce average wildland fire size and number of humancaused fire starts within wildland urban interface (WUI). 

Objective WFM-I-O- 2. Reduce acres burned in vegetation types outside WUI where more wildland fires have burned than desired/historic. 

Objective WFM-II-O1. Same as Alternative I. 

 Objective WFM-II-O2. Same as Alternative I. 

Objective WFM-III-O1. Strive to reduce average wildland fire size, number of humancaused fire starts, and number of acres burned within and outside WUI throughout the planning area. 

Objective WFM-IV1. Same as AlternaI. 

Objective WFM-IV2. Same as AlternaI. 

Manage the entire planning area (1,374,000 acres) for full suppression. 

Critical Suppression Areas would include 481,000 

acres:  WUI  Bruneau-Jarbidge, 

Lower Bruneau Canyon, Middle Snake, and Salmon Falls Creek ACECs 

 Key sage-grouse habitat 

Critical Suppression Areas would include 172,000 acres:  WUI 

Critical Suppression Areas would include 469,000 acres:  WUI  Bruneau-Jarbidge and 

Salmon Falls Creek ACECs 

 Key sage-grouse 

habitat 

Critical Suppression Areas would include 594,000 acres in Alternative IV-A and 555,000 acres in Alternative IV-B:  WUI  Bruneau-Jarbidge, 

Inside Desert, JarbFoothills, and LowBruneau Canyon ACECs 

 Key sage-grouse 

habitat 

No similar management action.

Improve water availability for fire suppression in high recreational use areas, in accordance with Idaho and Nevada State Law regarding the appropriation and use of water. 

Improve water availability for fire suppression in 

native plant communities and WUI, in accordance with Idaho and Nevada State Law regarding the use of water. 

Improve water availability for fire suppression throughout the planning area, in accordance with Idaho and Nevada State Law regarding the appropriation and use of water. 

Same as Alternative I
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

No similar management action. 

Consistent with other resource objectives, implement measures to reduce response time for fire suppression activities. 

Consistent with resource use objectives, implement measures to reduce response time for fire suppression activities. 

Implement measures to reduce response time for fire suppression activities. 

Same as Alternative I

No similar management action. 

No similar management action. 

No similar management action. 

Authorized uses may be limited/prohibited to reduce wildland fire. 

Same as Alternative I

No goal stated. Goal FFE-CA-G- 1. Reduce fire hazard to WUI. 

No goal stated. Goal FFE-I-G- 1. Manage 

vegetation communities outside WUI to maintain or restore their fire regimes and mosaic of successional classes to within their historic range. 

Goal FFE-II-G- 1. Same as Alternative I. 

Goal FFE-III-G- 1. Manage vegetation communities to lengthen the fire return interval. 

Goal FFE-IV-G- 1. Same as Alternative I

No objective stated. Objective FFE-CA-O- 1. Manage plant communities within WUI to reduce Relative Risk Rating as identifie

Assessment of Wildland Fire Risk to Communities. 

No objective stated. Objective FFE-I-O- 1. 

Manage plant communities outside WUI to move toward FRCC 1. 

Objective FFE-II-O- 1. Manage native plant communities outside WUI, excluding Sandberg/non-native areas, to move toward FRCC 1 .Manage nonnative plant communities and Sandberg/non-native areas for commodity use, which may not be toward FRCC 1 

Objective FFE-III-O1. Manage native plant communities outside WUI to move toward FRCC 1. Manage nonnative plant communities to reduce wildland fire size and intensity, which may not be toward FRCC 1. 

Objective FFE-IV-1. Same as AlternaI. 

No objective stated. Objective FFE-I-O- 2. 

Implement fuels treatments to protect Critical Suppression Areas; limit the spread, size, and intensity of wildland fire; and maintain or improve vegetation. 

Objective FFE-II-O- 2. Same as Alternative I. 

Objective FFE-III-O2. Implement fuels treatments to protect Critical Suppression Areas and limit the spread, size, and intensity of wildland fire. 

Objective FFE-IV-2. Same as AlternaI. 

ES-6 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

No similar management action. 

Implement fuels treatments to reduce fuel loads with consideration for other resource and resource use objectives. 

Same as Alternative I. Implement fuels 

treatments to reduce fuel loads as appropriate to reduce wildland fire size and intensity. 

Implement fuels treatments to reduce floads with consideratfor other resource objectives. 

No similar management action. 

Fuels treatments in WUI would focus on areas with high and high/moderate Relative Risk Ratings in 

the northern portion of the planning area. 

Fuels treatments in WUI would focus on areas with high, high/moderate, and moderate Relative Risk Ratings in the northern portion of the planning area and near Roseworth. 

Fuels treatments in WUI would focus on areas with high, high/moderate, and moderate Relative Risk Ratings in the northern portion of the planning area and near Roseworth and Three Creek. 

Same as Alternative I

No similar management action. 

Outside SRMAs, fuel breaks would follow disturbance corridors or would protect restoration and Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Recovery (ES&BAR) treatments; fuel breaks for SRMAs could be used to protect adjacent areas, protect facilities, and protect high-use areas. 

Fuel breaks would focus on protecting commercial facilities; fuel breaks would also be placed in non-native communities to protect native communities. 

Fuel breaks would focus on strategic locations to disrupt the continuity of fuels and to protect structures and important resources such as habitat for sage-grouse and slickspot peppergrass. 

Fuel breaks would fodisturbance corridors would protect restoraor ES&BAR treatmen

No similar management action. 

No similar management action. 

Landscape-scale fuels reduction would occur primarily through increased allocation of vegetation for permitted livestock grazing and through increased livestock grazing utilization. 

Landscape-scale fuels reduction would occur primarily through increased allocation of annual and non-native perennial vegetation for permitted livestock grazing and through increased livestock grazing utilization in annual and non-native perennial communities. 

No similar managemeaction. 

ES-7 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Objective FFE-NA-O- 1. Rehabilitate public lands affected by wildland fires to accomplish multiple use objectives and designed to reduce fire size. 

Objective FFE-I-O- 3. Rehabilitate and stabilize areas to help stabilize soils, promote natural recovery, and establish pre-fire or historic vegetation communities. 

Objective FFE-II-O- 3. Same as Alternative I. 

Objective FFE-III-O3. Rehabilitate and stabilize areas to help stabilize soils, promote natural recovery, and establish fire-tolerant vegetation communities. 

Objective FFE-IV-3. Same as AlternaI. 

No similar management action. 

Rest burned areas from uses, including but not limited to livestock and wild horse grazing and recreational use

met and are predicted to be sustainable or if the treatment is determined to be unsuccessful. This guideline wouconflict with the treatment objectives. Use seed mixes that would help stabilize soils and achieve objectives in the Upland Vegetation, Riparian Area

Wildlife, and Special Status Species sections. 

Consider using temporary fences on a case-by-case basis. 

Consider using temporary fences on a case-by-case basis. Temporary fences may only be considered when there are at least 2,000 unburned acres in the pasture. 

Same as the No Action Alternative. 

Same as Alternative II. Consider using tempo

fences on a case-by-cbasis; however, temporary fences wonot be allowed in pastures with native plant communities. Temporary fences maonly be considered wthere are at least 2,00unburned acres in the pasture. 

Habitat for Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Plants and Animals No goal stated. Goal UV-CA-G- 1. Manage upland vegetation communities to promote soil stability, water infiltration, nutr

provide habitat for sage-grouse and other sagebrush steppe obligates; and provide for multiple use. Goal UV-I-G- 1. Manage vegetation to enhance and sustain existing and historic uses and to improve big game winter range and habitat for sage-grouse. 

Goal UV-II-G- 1. Manage vegetation to increase commercial uses while maintaining native plant communities and habitat for sage-grouse. 

Goal UV-III-G- 1. Manage vegetation to reduce fire size and intensity while maintaining habitat for sage-grouse. 

Goal UV-IV-G- 1. Manage vegetation to restore the resiliency ecosystem structure afunction and reduce fragmentation of habfor sage-grouse and other native species. 

ES-8 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ES-9 

No Action Alternative 

 Objective UV-NA-O- 1. 

Improve lands in poor ecological condition across the planning area. Improve lands in Salmon Falls Creek Canyon through natural plant succession and removal of livestock. Maintain lands that are in good and excellent ecological condition in the Bruneau-Sheep Creek and Jarbidge WSAs. 

 Objective UV-NA-O- 2. 

Maintain non-native perennial communities. 

Maintain non-native perennial communities for livestock on 

349,000 acres throughout the planning area. 

Implement seeding treatments for livestock on 11,000 acres in the Jarbidge Foothills and 

Diamond A Desert. Implement brush control and seeding treatments for livestock on 13,000 acres in 

the middle third of the 

planning area. Implement brush control 

treatments for livestock on 32,000 acres, primarily in the southern half of the planning 

area. 

Alternative I 

 Objective UV-I-O- 1. 

Manage vegetation in 

Vegetation Management Area (VMA) A to achieve the vegetation sub-group (VSG) acres 

below: 

VSG Acres 

Annual 50,000 Non-Native 

Perennial 97,500 

Non-Native 

Understory 5,000 Native Grassland 32,500 Native Shrubland 32,500 Unvegetated 

Areas 2,500 

 Objective UV-I-O- 2. 

Manage vegetation in VMA B to achieve the VSG acres below: 

VSG Acres 

Annual 17,500 Non-Native Perennial 147,500 Non-Native Understory 17,500 Native Grassland 97,500 Native Shrubland 335,000 Unvegetated Areas 15,000 

Alternative II 

 Objective UV-II-O- 1. 

Manage vegetation in 

VMA A to achieve the VSG acres below: 

VSG Acres 

Annual 30,000 Non-Native Perennial 140,000 Non-Native Understory 5,000 

Native Grassland 25,000 Native Shrubland 17,500 Unvegetated Areas 2,500 

 Objective UV-II-O- 2. 

Manage vegetation in VMA B to achieve the VSG acres below: 

VSG Acres 

Annual 7,500 Non-Native Perennial 220,000 

Non-Native Understory 17,500 

Native Grassland 195,000 Native Shrubland 175,000 Unvegetated Areas 15,000 

Alternative III 

 Objective UV-III-O- 1.

Manage vegetation in VMA A to achieve the VSG acres below: 

 Objective UV-III-O- 2.

Manage vegetation in VMA B to achieve the VSG acres below: 

VSG Acres 

Annual 37,500 

Non-Native Perennial 130,000 

Non-Native Understory 5,000 Native Grassland 25,000 Native Shrubland 17,500 Unvegetated Areas 5,000 

VSG Acres 

Annual 10,000 

Non-Native Perennial 215,000 Non-Native Understory 25,000 Native Grassland 90,000 Native Shrubland 270,000 

Unvegetated 

Areas 20,000 

Alternative IV 

 Objective UV-IV-O

Manage vegetation VMA A to achieve VSG acres below: 

 VSG Acr

Annual 30,Non-Native Perennial 87,Non-Native Understory 5,Native Grassland 12,Native Shrubland 82,Unvegetated Areas 2,

 Objective UV-IV-O

Manage vegetation VMA B to achieve VSG acres below: 

VSG Acr

Annual 7,Non-Native Perennial 65,Non-Native Understory 72,Native Grassland 97,Native Shrubland 372,Unvegetated Areas 15,
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ES-10 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Implement interseeding or 

reseeding treatments for wildlife on 9,000 acres, primarily in the southern half of the planning area. 

Objective UV-I-O- 3. 

Manage vegetation in VMA C to achieve the VSG acres below: 

Objective UV-II-O- 3. 

Manage vegetation in VMA C to achieve the VSG acres below: 

Objective UV-III-O- 3. 

Manage vegetation in 

VMA C to achieve the VSG acres below: 

Objective UV-IV-O

Manage vegetation 

VMA C to achieve VSG acres below: 

VSG Acres 

Annual 7,500 Non-Native 37,500 Perennial 

Non-Native 5,000 Understory 

Native 65,000 Grassland 

Native 195,000 Shrubland 

Unvegetated 2,500 Areas 

VSG Acres 

Annual 7,500 Non-Native 67,500 Perennial 

Non-Native 10,000 Understory 

Native 132,500 Grassland 

Native 92,500 Shrubland 

Unvegetated 2,500 Areas 

VSG Acres 

Annual 7,500 

Non-Native 60,000 Perennial 

Non-Native 22,500 Understory 

Native 60,000 Grassland 

Native 157,500 Shrubland 

Unvegetated 5,000 Areas 

VSG Acr

Annual 7,

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Non-Native 50,

Understory 

Native 32,

Grassland 

Native 220,

Shrubland 

Unvegetated 2,

Areas 

Objective UV-I-O- 4. 

Manage vegetation in VMA D to achieve the VSG acres below: 

Objective UV-II-O- 4. 

Manage vegetation in VMA D to achieve the VSG acres below: 

Objective UV-III-O- 4. 

Manage vegetation in 

VMA D to achieve the 

VSG acres below: 

Objective UV-IV-O

Manage vegetation 

VMA D to achieve 

VSG acres below: 

VSG Acres 

Annual 2,500 Non-Native 15,000 Perennial 

Non-Native 12,500 Understory 

Native 17,500 Grassland 

Native 152,500 Shrubland 

Unvegetated 10,000 Areas 

VSG Acres 

Annual 2,500 Non-Native 20,000 Perennial 

Non-Native 0 Understory 

Native 72,500 Grassland 

Native 105,000 Shrubland 

Unvegetated 10,000 Areas 

VSG Acres 

Annual 2,500 

Non-Native 7,500 Perennial 

Non-Native 10,000 Understory 

Native 55,000 Grassland 

Native 125,000 Shrubland 

Unvegetated 10,000 Areas 

VSG Acr

Annual 2,

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Non-Native 5,

Understory 

Native 7,

Grassland 

Native 185,

Shrubland 

Unvegetated 10,

Areas 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

The priority for vegetation treatments would be:  Areas with unacceptable 

soil loss. 

 Areas where grazing is at 

levels below preference. 

 Areas where excessive 

annual vegetation is causing management problems or economic burdens. 

 Areas where unacceptable 

wildlife habitat condition exists. 

 Area for overall multiple 

use improvement using seed mixtures for both wildlife and livestock. 

Focus restoration treatments on habitat for sage-grouse, other special status species, and mule deer. The priority for vegetation treatments would be:  Treatments in VMA C 

to improve habitat for mule deer and sagegrouse. 

 Treatments in VMA A 

to move toward perennial vegetation. 

Focus restoration treatments on habitat for sage-grouse and other special status species. The priority for vegetation treatments would be:  Treatments in VMA A 

to increase perennial forage for livestock. 

 Treatments in VMA B 

to increase forage for livestock. 

Focus vegetation treatments on protecting or restoring habitat for sage-grouse and other special status species. The priority for vegetation treatments would be:  Treatments in VMA A 

to help lengthen the fire return interval. 

 Treatments in VMA D 

to protect native shrubland communities. 

Focus restoration treatments on habitat sage-grouse, other spstatus species, mule dand pronghorn. The priority for vegetation treatments would be:  Treatments in VM

to improve sagegrouse habitat. 

 Treatments in VM

to reconnect and expand habitat fosage-grouse. 

Targeted grazing and prescribed fire could be used as tools for vegetation treatments. Chemical control of sagebrush would not be allowed. 

Targeted grazing could be used as a tool for vegetation treatments. Prescribed fire would not be allowed. 

Targeted grazing could be used as a tool for vegetation treatments. Prescribed fire would not be allowed in native grassland or native shrubland communities. 

Targeted grazing and prescribed fire could be used as tools for vegetation treatments. 

Same as Alternative I

Upland vegetation treatments may use native species, including cultivars of native species, and non-native species Projects to improve ecological condition to benefit wildlife or livestock will use seed mixtures that are normally found in that ecological zone. 

Upland vegetation treatments may use native species, including cultivars of native species, and non-native species. Native species would be used when practical, with special emphasis on species of importance to the tribes. 

Non-native species would be primarily used in upland vegetation treatments. Fire-tolerant species would also be used, primarily in annual communities. 

Fire-tolerant and fireresistant species would have high priority for upland vegetation treatments. Treatments may also use other native species, including cultivars of native species, and nonnative species. 

Same as Alternative I

ES-11 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ES-12 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

No similar management action. 

Create 75 ungrazed reference areas (12,000 acres) in annual, nonnative perennial, nonnative understory, native grassland, and native shrubland communities. 

Create 52 ungrazed reference areas (2,000 acres) in native grassland and native shrubland communities, as well as non-native perennial communities that have burned multiple times in 

the last 20 years. 

Create 75 ungrazed reference areas (3,000 

acres) in annual, nonnative perennial, nonnative understory, native grassland, and native shrubland communities. 

Same as Alternative I

No similar management action. 

Implement drought management guidelines during periods of drought to maintain or achieve long-term resour

No similar management action. 

Rest vegetation treatment areas from uses, including but not limited to livestock and wild horse grazing and re

objectives are met and are predicted to be sustainable. This guideline would not apply to uses that do not confl

No goal stated. Goal RI-CA-G- 1. Provide healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian areas, and associated aquatic habitats. 

Objective RI-NA-O- 1. Maintain 1987 condition of riparian habitat in the northern half of the planning area, as well as the Diamond A Desert. Improve 44 miles of riparian habitat in the remainder of the planning area. 

Objective RI-I-O- 1. Maintain 85 miles of 

Priority 3 streams at proper functioning condition (PFC). Improve 60 miles of Priority 1 streams to achieve PFC. Improve the remaining 17 miles of Priority 1 streams and 63 miles of Priority 2 

streams to be moving toward PFC. 

Objective RI-II-O- 1. Maintain 85 miles of Priority 3 streams at PFC. Improve 77 miles of Priority 1 streams and 63 miles of Priority 2 streams to be moving toward PFC. 

Objective RI-III-O- 1. 

Maintain 85 miles of Priority 3 streams at PFC. Improve 77 miles 

of Priority 1 streams and 21 miles of Priority 2 streams to achieve PFC. Improve the remaining 42 miles 

of Priority 2 streams to 

be moving toward PFC. 

Objective RI-IV-OSame as AlternativIII. 

Use a 100- to 300-foot riparian buffer zone to protect 

riparian vegetation, fisheries, and water quality. Within the riparian buffer zone activities such as new road construction, 

use of herbicides and pesticides, and gravel 

extraction would be limited. 

Some activities would be excluded within 500 feet of 

riparian areas. 

Create Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) around riparian areas and wetlands that contain special status spe

riparian vegetation, fisheries, and water quality. RCA widths would be as follows: 

 Category 1 – Fish-bearing streams: approximately 300 feet from the edge of the stream 

 Category 2 – Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams: approximately 150 feet from the edge of the st Category 3 – Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre: approximately 150 feet from the ed

 Category 4 – Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, landslides, and landslide

feet from the edge of the stream, wetland, or landslide-prone area 

Implement the Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy (ARMS; Appendix D) to achieve riparian managem

other riparian areas and wetlands. Use adaptive management as outlined in the ARMS to reduce impacts on rip

uses and activities. 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Riparian and wetland habitat would have a high priority for protection and improvement in accordance with national policy. Manage watersheds to maintain or improve stream channel stability and overall watershed conditions. 

Riparian management priorities would include the following:  Priority 1 streams: streams rated as functioning-at-risk (FAR) or functioning-at-risk with a downward trend 

management emphasis for Priority 1 streams would be on restoration. 

 Priority 2 streams: streams rated as functioning-at-risk with an upward trend (FAR-UP) or non-functioning 

emphasis for Priority 2 streams would be on restoration. 

 Priority 3 streams: streams rated at PFC (85 miles); management emphasis for Priority 3 streams would be o

Stream reaches with game 

fish or habitat suitable for game fish would be a 

high priority for restoration. 

Fish-bearing stream reaches, including reaches containing game 

and non-game fish, would be a high priority for restoration. 

Stream reaches/riparian areas with the potential to serve as fuel breaks 

would be a high priority for restoration. 

Stream reaches contaspecial status specietheir habitat would b

high priority for restoration. 

No similar management action. 

Create 10 ungrazed riparian reference areas (3,000 acres). 

Create 10 ungrazed riparian reference areas (1,000 acres). 

Same as Alternative II. Same as Alternative I

Livestock Forage Continue allocating approximately 200,000 animal unit months (AUMs) for livestock. As the plan is implemented, between 160,000 and 260,000 AUMs could be issued for livestock depending on implementation of treatments described in the Upland Vegetation section. 

Allocate vegetation production to livestock as follows:  25-35% of native 

perennial grass production 

 30-40% of non-native 

perennial grass production 

 20-30% of annual grass 

production 

 8-11% of shrub and 

forb production 

Allocate vegetation production to livestock as follows:  40-50% of native 

perennial grass production 

 50-60% of non-native 

perennial grass production 

 70-80% of annual 

grass production 

 12-16% of shrub and 

forb production 

Allocate vegetation production to livestock as follows:  35-45% of native 

perennial grass production 

 40-50% of non-native 

perennial grass production 

 40-50% of annual 

grass production 

 11-14% of shrub and 

forb production 

Allocate vegetation production to livestocfollows:  15-25% of native 

perennial grass production 

 20-30% of non-na

perennial grass 

production 

 0% of annual gras

production 

 0% of shrub and fo

production 

Livestock Grazing 

Forage and Grazing Management Practices No goal stated. 

Objective LG-NA-O- 1. Design and establish grazing management practices to meet fisheries, riparian, and water quality needs. 

Goal LG-I-G- 1. Provide for livestock grazing through application of proper grazing management to enhance and sustain existing and historic uses and to improve habitat for big game and sage-grouse. 

Goal LG-II-G- 1. Provide for livestock grazing through application of proper grazing management to maintain or improve the condition of forage resources while maintaining native plant communities and habitat for sage-grouse. 

Goal LG-III-G- 1. Provide for livestock grazing through application of proper grazing management to reduce wildland fire size and intensity while maintaining habitat for sage-grouse. 

Goal LG-IV-G- 1. Provide for livestock grazing through application of proper grazing management support restoration of resiliency of ecosystestructure and functioand to reduce fragmentation of habfor sage-grouse and 

ES-13 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Objective LG-NA-O- 2. Establish livestock grazing systems and practices that recognize the physiological requirements of forbs and shrubs. 

Objective LG-I-O- 1. In native plant communities excluding Sandberg/non-native areas, manage livestock grazing to help maintain and improve native plant species diversity and abundance, focusing on plant reproductive and physiological needs. 

Objective LG-I-O- 2. In non-native perennial communities including Sandberg/non-native areas, manage livestock grazing to maintain and improve perennial plant species diversity and abundance, taking into account sage-grouse and big game habitat needs. 

Objective LG-II-O- 1. Same as Alternative I. 

Objective LG-II-O- 2. In non-native perennial communities including Sandberg/non-native areas, manage livestock grazing to sustain the perennial forage base and allow for other commercial uses. 

Objective LG-III-O- 1. In native plant communities including the Sandberg/nonnative areas, manage livestock grazing to help maintain and improve native plant species diversity and abundance, focusing on plant reproductive and physiological needs. 

Objective LG-III-O- 2. Manage livestock grazing to reduce fuels in non-native perennial communities. 

other native species. 

Objective LG-IV-OSame as AlternativIII. 

Objective LG-IV-OIn non-native perencommunities, manlivestock grazing tachieve restoration objectives outlined the Upland Vegetasection. 

No similar objective. Objective LG-CA-O- 1. Manage livestock grazing in annual communities to achieve objectives in the Uplan

Ecology and Management sections. 

Allocate 1,414,000 acres as available for livestock grazing and 51,000 acres as not 

available for livestock grazing. 

Allocate 1,381,000 acres as available for livestock grazing and 84,000 acres as not available for livestock grazing. 

Allocate 1,406,000 acres as available for livestock grazing and 59,000 acres 

as not available for livestock grazing. 

Allocate 1,404,000 acres 

as available for livestock grazing and 61,000 acres as not available for livestock grazing. 

Allocate 1,320,000 acin Alternative IV-A a1,352,000 acres in A

IV-B as available for livestock grazing and 145,000 acres in Alternative IV-A and 113,000 acres in Alternative IV-B as navailable for livestock grazing. 

ES-14 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ES-15 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

All areas not available to livestock grazing in this alternative are common to all alternatives. 

Areas not available to livestock grazing in addition to those common to all alternatives include portions of the Middle Snake ACEC, Wildlife Tracts, reference areas, and areas open to cross-country motorized vehicle use. 

Areas not available to livestock grazing in 

addition to those common to all alternatives include Wildlife Tracts and reference areas. 

Same as Alternative II. Areas not available to 

livestock grazing in addition to those comto all alternatives inclbull trout streams, the Inside Desert ACEC, Wildlife Tracts, and reference areas. 

Develop grazing systems to maintain condition in MUA 4. Develop grazing management systems on fair condition range in MUA 11 to improve to good or better condition. Additional grazing systems would be implemented elsewhere. 

Implement adaptive management using grazing use indicators to meet resource and special designation area ob

BLM policy Grazing permit renewal following the Record of Decision (ROD) would follow the process outlined in Append

decisions for livestock grazing management, including grazing use indicators and grazing use criteria, and adju

Selective Management Category would be made at that time. 

Implement drought management guidelines during periods of drought to maintain or achieve long-term resour

Manage livestock grazing to follow BLM guidelines for managing sage-grouse habitat (e.g., 2006 Conservatio

Grouse in Idaho, Owyhee County and Jarbidge Local Working Group Sage-grouse Plans). 

Livestock season of use would be adjusted in Multiple Use Areas (MUAs) 10, 15, and 16, if necessary, to resolve any conflicts on mule deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep ranges. These adjustments would entail the reduction in spring or fall livestock grazing use from a specific period(s) of a grazing year. 

Livestock grazing may be allowed in big game winter range in native shrubland communities during the 

winter. Adjust livestock grazing in the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC so seasons of use would not overlap bighorn sheep breeding and winter periods in pastures that contain bighorn sheep habitat. 

No date restrictions on livestock grazing in winter range would be 

made. 

Livestock grazing may be allowed in big game winter range in native shrubland communities 

during the winter. Adjust livestock grazing south of Sheep Creek so seasons of use would not overlap bighorn sheep breeding and winter periods in pastures that contain bighorn sheep habitat. 

Livestock grazing maallowed in big game winter range in native shrubland communitiduring the winter. Adjust livestock grazso seasons of use wounot overlap bighorn sbreeding and winter periods in pastures thcontain bighorn sheep habitat. 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Temporary Non-Renewable Authorizations (TNR) would be allowed. 

TNR would be allowed except in pastures containing WSA, the riparian pasture in the Sand Point ACEC, pastures with >50% big game winter range, or pastures with >50% native communities. 

TNR would be allowed except in pastures containing areas within a WSA boundary. 

Same as Alternative I. TNR would be allowe

except in pastures containing WSA, the riparian pasture in the Sand Point ACEC, pastures with >50% bgame winter range, or pastures with >25% native communities. 

Range Infrastructure 

Objective LG-NA-O- 3. Design range infrastructure to achieve objectives in the Vegetation Communities, Fish and Wildlife, and Livestock Grazing objectives. 

Objective LG-I-O- 3. Manage range infrastructure at levels appropriate to the amount of livestock use to provide for efficient management of livestock grazing allotments, consistent with resource objectives. 

Objective LG-II-O- 3. Manage range infrastructure at levels appropriate to the amount of livestock use to provide for efficient management of livestock grazing allotments. 

Objective LG-III-O- 3. Manage range infrastructure at levels appropriate to the amount of livestock use to provide for efficient management of livestock grazing allotments and support fire suppression efforts. 

Objective LG-IV-OManage range infrastructure at levappropriate to the amount of livestocto provide for efficmanagement of livestock grazing allotments and supresource objectives

Install or construct new infrastructure as follows:  161 miles of pipelines  3 reservoirs, wells, or 

springs 

 26 miles of fences 

Consider installing or constructing new range infrastructure on a case-bycase basis where they would help meet resource objectives. 

Consider installing or constructing new range infrastructure on a caseby-case basis to promote livestock distribution or meet resource objectives. 

Consider installing or constructing new range infrastructure on a caseby-case basis where they would help meet resource objectives or to aid in fire suppression. 

Same as Alternative I

Design new spring developments and modify selected existing spring developments to protect wetted areas. 

Minimize disturbance at developed springs by using existing routes for access, redesigning the spring develop

reconstruction activities to areas disturbed during previous construction or to areas outside the wetland. Modifdevelopments to improve wetland areas by protecting the spring source and ensuring adequate water to supporriparian vegetation. New spring developments must avoid or minimize ground disturbance, protect the spring s

to maintain the wetland. Other mitigation may be required to minimize impacts to cultural and natural resource

values. 

Recreation Recreation No goal stated. Goal REC-CA-G- 1. Provide a variety of dispersed and developed recreational opportunities and experience

sustaining the recreation resource base and avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for resource impacts. 

ES-16 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ES-17 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Objective REC-NA-O- 1. Protect the Salmon Falls Creek Canyon (rim-to-rim) for its natural and scenic values through special designation and management as an SRMA. 

Objective REC-I-O- 1. Manage 341,800 acres as SRMAs and 1,031,700 acres as an 

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). 

Objective REC-II-O- 1. Manage 21,300 acres 

as SRMAs and 1,352,200 acres as an 

ERMA. 

Objective REC-III-O1. Manage 55,800 acres as SRMAs and 1,317,700 acres as an 

ERMA. 

Objective REC-IV1. Manage 204,000 acres as SRMAs a1,169,570 acres as 

ERMA. 

Continue managing the Hagerman-Owsley Bridge (Yahoo) SRMA (2,700 acres). 

The Deadman/Yahoo SRMA (36,000 acres) 

would consist of four Recreation Management Zones (RMZs):  Deadman (13,000 

acres), Pasadena (2,000 acres), and Yahoo (3,000 acres) RMZs: 

off-road ATV and motorcycle riding. 

 Rosevear Gulch RMZ 

(18,000 acres): motorized trail riding opportunities on a series of designated routes. 

No similar management action. 

The Deadman/Yahoo SRMA (34,000 acres) would consist of three RMZs:  Deadman (13,000 

acres) and Yahoo (3,000 acres) RMZs: 

off-road ATV and motorcycle riding. 

 Rosevear Gulch RMZ 

(18,000 acres): 

motorized trail riding opportunities on a series of designated routes. 

Same as Alternative I

No similar management action. 

Manage the Balanced Rock SRMA (500 acres) for 

visitors hiking, viewing wildlife and natural scenery, and nonmotorized boating. 

No similar management action. 

Same as Alternative I. No similar manageme

action. 

No similar management action. 

Manage the Little Pilgrim SRMA (300 acres) for 

sturgeon fishing and bird hunting. 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. No similar manageme

action. 

Continue managing the 

Bruneau-Jarbidge River SRMA (57,000 acres). 

Manage the BruneauJarbidge SRMA (14,000 

acres) for whitewater boating and primitive camping. 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Continue managing the Jarbidge Forks SRMA (4,000 acres). 

Manage the Jarbidge Forks SRMA (2,000 acres) for fishing, rafting, picnicking, camping, and viewing wildlife and natural scenery. 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I

No similar management action. 

Manage the Canyonlands SRMA (149,000 acres) for non-motorized recreation experiences. 

No similar management action. 

No similar management action. 

Same as Alternative I

No similar management action. 

Manage the Jarbidge Foothills SRMA (135,000 acres) for non-motorized recreation experiences. 

No similar management action. 

No similar management action. 

No similar managemeaction. 

No similar management action. 

The Salmon Falls Reservoir SRMA (5,000 

acres) would consist of three RMZs:  Antelope Bay RMZ 

(2,000 acres): hunting, fishing, camping, boating, water sports, and trail riding. 

 Cedar Creek RMZ 

(1,000 acres): fishing, camping, and boating. 

 Lud’s Point RMZ (2,000 

acres): hunting, fishing, primitive camping, and viewing wildlife and natural scenery. 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I

Continue managing the Oregon Trail SRMA (7,000 acres) and Salmon Falls Creek SRMA (6,000 acres). 

No similar management action. The Oregon Trail is managed as a National Historic Trail (NHT). Salmon Falls Creek is managed as a Wilderness Study Area and, in Alternatives I and III, as an ACEC as well

Transportation and Travel Management The majority of the planning area (1,062,000 acres) would 

be open to cross-country motorized vehicle use. 

Designated areas in the Deadman/Yahoo SRMA would be open to crosscountry motorized vehicle use (3,600 acres). 

No areas would be open to cross-country motorized vehicle use. 

Designated areas in the Deadman/Yahoo SRMA would be open to crosscountry motorized vehicle use (3,570 acres). 

Same as Alternative I

ES-18 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Salmon Falls Creek ACEC and the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons (25,000 acres) would 

be closed to motorized vehicle use. 

Salmon Falls Creek ACEC north and south of Lily Grade crossing, nonWSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics, and the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons would be closed to motorized vehicle use (57,000 acres). 

The Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons would be closed to motorized vehicle use (21,000 acres). 

Salmon Falls Creek ACEC north and south of Lily Grade crossing and the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons would be closed to motorized vehicle use (27,000 acres). 

Non-WSA lands manfor their wilderness characteristics and the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons would be cloto motorized vehicle u(74,000 acres). 

Portions of WSAs not closed to motorized vehicle use (70,000 acres) would be limited to inventoried ways. 

Portions of WSAs not closed to motorized vehicle use (72,000 acres) 

would be limited to designated ways. Until the Comprehensive Transportation and Travel Management Plan (CTTMP) is completed, travel is limited to inventoried ways. 

Portions of WSAs not closed to motorized vehicle use (73,000 acres) would be limited to designated ways. Until the CTTMP is completed, travel is limited to inventoried ways. 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I

Sand Point ACEC, the Oregon NHT, bighorn sheep habitat, and cultural resource complexes (216,000 acres) 

would be limited to designated routes. 

Travel in the remainder of the planning area (1,241,000 acres) would 

be limited to designated routes. Until the CTTMP is completed, travel would be limited to existing routes. 

Travel in the remainder of the planning area (1,297,000 acres) would be limited to designated routes. Until the CTTMP is completed, travel would be limited to existing routes. 

Travel in the remainder of the planning area (1,275,000 acres) would be limited to designated routes. Until the CTTMP is completed, travel would be limited to existing routes. 

Travel in the remaindthe planning area (1,223,000 acres) woube limited to designatroutes. Until the CTTMis completed, travel wbe limited to existing routes. 

Energy Development Land Use Authorizations No goal stated. Goal LA-CA-G- 1. Public needs for land use authorizations would be met with consideration for other resou

ES-19 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

No objective stated. Objective LA-I-O- 1. 

Provide for the development of renewable energy resources, transportation routes, utility corridors, transmission lines, communication sites and other uses with consideration for resource objectives. 

Objective LA-II-O- 1. Same as Alternative I. 

Objective LA-III-O- 1. Provide for the development of renewable energy resources, transportation routes, utility corridors, transmission lines, communication sites and other uses with consideration for resource objectives and wildland fire prevention and suppression objectives. 

Objective LA-IV-OSame as Alternativ

The following areas would be utility avoidance/ restricted areas (110,000 acres): 

 Paleontological sites at 

Glenns Ferry and Pasadena Valley 

 Cultural resource 

complexes 

 Dove Springs  All rutted segments of 

Oregon Trail 

 Recommended suitable 

wilderness area 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge and Sand 

Point ACECs 

 Suitable Wild and Scenic 

River (WSR) corridors 

 Salmon Falls Creek 

Canyon. 

The following areas would be right-of-way (ROW) avoidance areas (896,000 acres):  Areas within United 

States Air Force (USAF) Military Operating Areas (MOAs) 

 Oregon NHT protective 

corridor 

 Eligible, suitable, and 

designated WSR corridors 

 Non-WSA lands 

managed for their wilderness characteristics 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge and 

Salmon Falls Creek ACECs 

The following areas would be ROW avoidance areas (878,000 acres): 

 Areas within USAF 

MOAs 

 Oregon NHT 

protective corridor 

 Eligible, suitable, and 

designated WSR corridors 

The following areas would be ROW avoidance areas (880,000 acres): 

 Areas within USAF 

MOAs 

 Oregon NHT 

protective corridor 

 Eligible, suitable, and 

designated WSR 

corridors 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge and 

Salmon Falls Creek ACECs 

The following areas would be ROW avoidareas (896,000 acres)

 Areas within USA

MOAs 

 Oregon NHT 

protective corridor 

 Eligible, suitable, a

designated WSR corridors 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge 

ACEC 

ES-20 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

No similar management action. 

The following areas would be ROW exclusion areas (95,000 acres):  Sand Point ACEC 

The following areas would be ROW exclusion areas (94,000 acres): 

 WSAs 

Same as Alternative I. The following areas 

would be ROW excluareas (148,000 acres)

 Sand Point ACEC 

 WSAs  WSAs 

 Non-WSA lands 

managed for their wilderness characteristics 

No similar management action. 

Designate the Pilgrim Gulch, Shoestring, Saylor Creek, Balanced Rock, and Jarbidge ROW corridors. 

Designate the Pilgrim Gulch, Shoestring, Saylor Creek, Balanced Rock, Jarbidge, and China Mountain ROW corridors. 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I

Implement the Programmatic Policies and Best Management Practices in the Wind Energy Development Program (Appendix N). 

No similar management action. 

Wind farms could be considered in areas with annual or non-native vegetation communities, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. 

Wind farms can be considered throughout the planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I

Restrict wind energy development from wildlife habitat where adverse effects could not be mitigated. 

Restrict wind energy site testing and monitoring and 

wind energy development from occupied habitat for special status plants and animals, and cultural resources where their direct and indirect adverse 

effects cannot be mitigated. 

Restrict wind turbines and meteorological towers from occupied habitat for Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate species where their direct adverse effects cannot be mitigated. 

Same as Alternative I. Restrict wind energy 

testing and monitorinand wind energy development from occupied and suitable habitat for special staspecies, wildlife habiand cultural resources where their direct and indirect adverse effeccannot be mitigated. 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

No similar management action. 

The following areas would be ROW exclusion areas (95,000 acres):  Sand Point ACEC  WSAs 

The following areas would be ROW exclusion areas (94,000 acres): 

 WSAs 

Same as Alternative I. The following areas 

would be ROW excluareas (148,000 acres)

 Sand Point ACEC  WSAs  Non-WSA lands 

managed for their wilderness characteristics 

No similar management action. 

Designate the Pilgrim 

Gulch, Shoestring, Saylor Creek, Balanced Rock, and Jarbidge ROW corridors. 

Designate the Pilgrim Gulch, Shoestring, Saylor Creek, Balanced Rock, Jarbidge, and China Mountain ROW corridors. 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I

Implement the Programmatic Policies and Best Management Practices in the Wind Energy Development Program (Appendix N). 

No similar management action. 

Wind farms could be considered in areas with annual or non-native vegetation communities, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. 

Wind farms can be considered throughout the planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance areas and outside ROW 

exclusion areas. 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I

Restrict wind energy development from wildlife habitat where adverse effects could not be mitigated. 

Restrict wind energy site testing and monitoring and 

wind energy development from occupied habitat for special status plants and animals, and cultural resources where their direct and indirect adverse 

effects cannot be mitigated. 

Restrict wind turbines and meteorological towers from occupied habitat for Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate species where their direct adverse effects cannot be mitigated. 

Same as Alternative I. Restrict wind energy 

testing and monitorinand wind energy development from occupied and suitable habitat for special staspecies, wildlife habiand cultural resources where their direct and indirect adverse effeccannot be mitigated. 

ES-21 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

No similar management action. 

Locate new transmission and phone lines, communications towers, meteorological towers, and wind turbines 1 to 3 miles away from active sagegrouse leks if the structure would not conflict with the lek. If this cannot be documented, structures must be >3 miles away. 

Locate new transmission and phone lines, communications towers, meteorological towers, and wind turbines >1 mile from active sage-grouse leks. 

Locate new transmission and phone lines, communications towers, meteorological towers, and wind turbines >3 miles from active sagegrouse leks. 

Locate new transmissand phone lines, communications towemeteorological towerand wind turbines >5 miles from active saggrouse leks. 

Leasable Minerals No goal stated. Goal LE-CA-G- 1 Provide leasable mineral development opportunities where they are compatible with othe

Objective LE-NA-O- 1. Make 1,307,000 acres of the area available for leasable mineral exploration and development across all MUAs. 

Objective LE-I-O- 1. Facilitate reasonable, economical, and environmentally sound exploration and development of leasable minerals where compatible with resource objectives. 

Objective LE-II-O- 1. Same as Alternative I. 

Objective LE-III-O- 1. Facilitate reasonable, economical, and environmentally sound exploration and development of leasable minerals where compatible with resource and wildland fire prevention and suppression objectives. 

Objective LE-IV-OSame as Alternativ

All mineral leases would be subject to laws, regulations, and formal orders, the terms and conditions of the stafor Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) Section 7 Consultation and Cultural Resource Protection; allocatioadditional constraints would apply. 

Allocate 1,303,000 acres as open to mineral leasing. 

Allocate 670,000 acres of 

Federal mineral estate as open to mineral leasing with no additional constraints. 

Allocate 1,355,000 acres of Federal mineral estate as open to mineral leasing with no additional constraints. 

Allocate 1,355,000 acres of Federal mineral estate as open to mineral leasing with no additional constraints. 

Allocate 634,000 acr

Federal mineral estate Alternative IV-A and 648,000 acres in Alternative IV-B as oto mineral leasing witadditional constraints

ES-22 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ES-23 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Allocate the following areas as open to mineral leasing, subject to moderate constraints:  Seasonal restrictions in big 

game winter range, pronghorn fawning range, key sage-grouse and sharptailed grouse habitats, raptor winter and nesting habitat 

Allocate 633,000 acres of 

Federal mineral estate as open to mineral leasing, subject to moderate constraints:  Seasonal restrictions in 

big game winter range, key sage-grouse habitat, and bull trout and redband trout habitat 

 Controlled surface use 

restriction in RCAs 

Allocate 17,000 acres of 

Federal mineral estate as open to mineral leasing, subject to moderate constraints:  Controlled surface use 

restriction in RCAs 

Allocate 17,000 acres of 

Federal mineral estate as open to mineral leasing, subject to moderate constraints:  Controlled surface use 

restriction in RCAs 

Allocate 586,000 acr

Federal mineral estate Alternative IV-A and 604,000 acres in Alternative IV-B as oto mineral leasing, suto moderate constrain Seasonal restrictio

big game winter rakey sage-grouse habitat, and bull troand redband trout habitat 

 Controlled surface 

restriction in RCA

Allocate 284,000 acres as 

open to mineral leasing, subject to major constraints (no surface occupancy; NSO):  Oregon Trail  Sand Point ACEC and other 

paleontological sites and cultural resource complexes 

 WSAs; Bruneau-Jarbidge 

SRMA; and bighorn sheep habitat 

 Bruneau, Jarbidge, Arch, 

and Salmon Falls Canyons 

 Within 500 feet of riparian 

areas 

Allocate 32,000 acres of 

Federal mineral estate as open to mineral leasing, subject to major constraints (NSO):  The Oregon NHT 

protective corridor 

 The Kelton and Toana 

Freight Road protective corridors 

Allocate 29,000 acres of 

Federal mineral estate as open to mineral leasing, subject to major constraints (NSO):  The Oregon NHT 

protective corridor 

 Eligible, suitable, and 

designated WSRs 

Allocate 28,000 acres of 

Federal mineral estate as open to mineral leasing, subject to major constraints (NSO):  The Oregon NHT 

protective corridor 

 Eligible, suitable, and 

designated WSRs 

Allocate 32,000 acre

Federal mineral estate Alternative IV-A and 32,000 acres in Alternative IV-B as oto mineral leasing, suto major constraints (NSO):  The Oregon NHT 

protective corridor 

 The Kelton and To

Freight Road protecorridors 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Allocate 104,000 acres as 

closed to mineral leasing. 

Allocate 160,000 acres of 

Federal mineral estate as closed to mineral leasing in the following areas:  WSAs  Eligible, suitable, and 

designated WSRs 

 Non-WSA lands 

managed for their wilderness characteristics 

 Lower Bruneau Canyon, 

Bruneau-Jarbidge, Middle Snake, Salmon Falls Creek, and Sand Point ACECs 

Allocate 94,000 acres of 

Federal mineral estate as closed to mineral leasing in the following areas:  WSAs 

Allocate 96,000 acres of 

Federal mineral estate as closed to mineral leasing in the following areas:  WSAs  Bruneau-Jarbidge and 

Sand Point ACECs 

Allocate 243,000 acr

Federal mineral estate Alternative IV-A and 210,872 acres in Alternative IV-B as closed to mineral leasin the following areas WSAs  Eligible, suitable, a

designated WSRs; Inside Desert 

 Non-WSA lands 

managed for their wilderness characteristics 

 Lower Bruneau 

Canyon, BruneauJarbidge, and Sand Point ACECs 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) No goal stated. Goal ACEC-CA-G- 1. ACECs will be managed to protect the important biological, cultural, scenic, and hist

criteria for relevance and importance. 

Objective ACEC-NA-O- 1. 

Protect the cultural and scenic values of the 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC (85,000 acres). 

Objective ACEC-NA-O-2. Protect and enhance the Arch Canyon area, California bighorn sheep 

habitat, and the Jarbidge River system and protect and maintain the cultural, geologic, scenic, and natural values present in the area. 

Objective ACEC-NA-O-3. Protect the Salmon Falls Creek Canyon (2,700 acres) 

for its natural and scenic values through ACEC 

Objective ACEC-I-O- 1. 

Manage the lands within the Bruneau-Jarbidge 

ACEC to protect their fish, wildlife, botanical, scenic, and cultural resource values (85,000 acres). Objective ACEC-I-O- 2. 

Manage the lands within the Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC (1,100 acres) to protect their aquatic and botanical resources. 

Objective ACEC-I-O- 3. Manage the lands within the Middle Snake ACEC (7,500 acres) to protect 

No similar objectives. Objective ACEC-III-O1. Manage the lands 

within the BruneauJarbidge ACEC to 

protect their cultural, scenic, fish, wildlife, and botanical values (57,000 acres). 

Objective ACEC-III-O2. Manage the lands 

within the Salmon Falls Creek ACEC (2,700 acres) to protect their scenic, fish, and botanical values. 

Objective ACEC-III-O3. Manage the lands within the Sand Point 

ACEC (950 acres) to 

Objective ACEC-I

O- 1. Manage the l

within the BruneauJarbidge ACEC to protect their culturscenic, fish, and botanical values (123,000 acres). 

Objective ACEC-I

O- 2. Manage the lwithin the Inside Desert ACEC (Alternative IV-A: 73,000 acres; Alternative IV-B: 

41,000 acres) to 

protect their botanivalues. Objective ACEC-I

ES-24 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ES-25 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

designation and management. 

Objective ACEC-NA-O- 4. Manage the Sand Point ACEC (810 acres) to 

protect its paleontological and cultural resources, protect the geologic features present, and ensure that its scenic and wildlife values are maintained. 

their fish and botanical values. 

Objective ACEC-I-O- 4. Manage the lands within the Salmon Falls Creek ACEC (2,700 acres) to protect their scenic, fish, and botanical values. 

Objective ACEC-I-O- 5. Manage the lands within the Sand Point ACEC (950 acres) to protect their historic, cultural, paleontological, and geologic values. 

protect their historic, cultural, paleontological, and geologic values. 

O- 3. Manage the lwithin the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC (AIV-A: 136,000 acr

to protect their cultfish, wildlife, and botanical values. 

Objective ACEC-IO- 4. Manage the lwithin the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC (Alternative IV-B: 66,000 acres) to protect their culturwildlife, and botanvalues. 

Objective ACEC-IO- 5. Manage the lwithin the Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC (1,100 acreprotect their aquatiand botanical resources. 

Objective ACEC-IO- 6. Manage the lwithin the Sand PoACEC (950 acres) 

protect their historcultural, paleontological, angeologic values. 
                                                            

Executive Summary Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Affected Environment 

The following sections describe the current condition of the resources in the planning area as related to 

the planning issues. 

Vegetation (Upland and Riparian) 

Fuels Treatments, Fire Rehabilitation, and Fire Suppression 

Between 1987 and 2007, an average of 66,000 acres burned in the planning area each year, with a total 

of 1,394,000 acres burning during that 21-year period. The number of acres burned each year varied from 

a low of 700 acres in 1993 to high of 505,000 acres in 2007. The majority of the total acres (713,000) only 

burned once during this 21-year period. A total of 304,000 acres burned more than once; 750 acres 

burned five times between 1987 and 2007. These figures are based on fires greater than 10 acres and 

include all areas burned regardless of ownerships. 

During this time there were 486 fires, an average of 23 fires per year. The majority of wildland fire 

ignitions in the planning area (61%) were caused by lightning, while human-caused fires comprised 39%. 

This includes all wildland fire ignitions and not just those that resulted in wildland fires greater than 10 

acres. 

National and State BLM fire policy requires current and desired resource conditions related to fire 

management to be described in terms of three condition classes. These condition classes are collectively 

referred to as FRCC and are delineated as FRCC 1, FRCC 2, and FRCC 3. FRCC is a classification of 

the amount of departure from the Historic Fire Regime (HFR) (Hann & Bunnell, 2001). 

FRCC 1 (low departure) is considered to be within the historic range of variability of a given HFR, while 

FRCC 2 (moderate departure) and FRCC 3 (high departure) are outside the historic range of variability. 

HFR in the planning area was determined based on potential vegetation. Potential natural vegetation 

groups (PNVGs) in the planning area from the LANDFIRE1

 model are assigned to an HFR, a PNC (based 

on information from SSURGO), and a VSG. 

Successional classes (S-Classes) within each PNVG correspond to the VSGs outlined in the Upland 

Vegetation section in Chapter 3. The reference condition for each S-Class indicates the proportion of 

each S-Class that would comprise the historical vegetation mosaic. This is compared to the existing 

proportions of each S-Class to determine S-Class Similarity and FRCC for each PNVG. 

Table ES- 1 displays for each VMA the acres, S-Class similarity, and FRCC rating for each PNVG. A 

more detailed version containing existing and reference conditions for S-Classes within each PNVG by 

VMA can be found in Appendix S. 

Fuels models are used to describe fuel characteristics based on quantity, type, and spatial arrangement 

of fuel. Fuel models are used as input in fire behavior modeling to estimate or predict potential fire 

behavior and effects such as flame length and rate of spread under various environmental parameters. 

Flame length corresponds to fireline intensity, while rate of spread relates to fire size. Fuel models do not 

account for fire return interval, changes in landscape patterns, or length of fire season. Fuel models were 

assigned to each PNVG S-Class using Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models (Scott & Burgan, 2005). 

Because the size of wildland fire is a concern in the planning area, changes to rate of spread are an 

important characteristic in evaluating fire size. Table ES- 2 shows the acres of vegetation with each rate 

of spread rating by VMA. 

The Twin Falls District of the BLM manages wildland fires on BLM, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and 

State lands by cooperative agreements. A contractual agreement also exists with Department of Defense 

(DOD) USAF, which requires suppression of fires on DOD lands by BLM. BLM will suppress wildland fires 

on private lands when those fires pose a threat to BLM lands. The fire management organization 

1

 Current LANDFIRE nomenclature for PNVG is Biophysical Setting (BpS). 

August 2010 ES-26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Executive Summary 

performs management tasks that include: preparing firefighting personnel and equipment for wildland fire 

activities; suppressing wildland fires; preventing and educating the public about wildland fire; planning 

and implementing fuel activities including prescribed fire, vegetation inventory, and mechanical and 

chemical treatments; providing funding to communities for education, fuels, and prevention activities 

through the community assistance program; and implementing ES&BAR measures such as seeding and 

restoring vegetation on a wildland fire to minimize soil loss. 

Table ES- 1. Acres, S-Class Similarity, and FRCC Rating for PNVGs by VMA 

PNVG Acres of PNVGA S-Class Similarity FRCC Rating 

VMA A 

Basin Big Sagebrush (R2SBBB) 600 2% FRCC 3 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree (R2MSHBwt) <100 34% FRCC 2 

Salt Desert Shrub (R2DSH) 2,000 0% FRCC 3 

Wyoming Sagebrush Steppe (R2BWYse) 213,000 19% FRCC 3 

VMA B 

Basin Big Sagebrush (R2SBBB) 200 39% FRCC 2 

Black and Low Sagebrush (R2SBDW) 300 47% FRCC 2 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree (R2MSHBwt) 400 32% FRCC 3 

Salt Desert Shrub (R2DSH) 4,000 65% FRCC 2 

Wyoming Sagebrush Steppe (R2BWYse) 603,000 47% FRCC 2 

VMA C 

Basin Big Sagebrush (R2SBBB) 9,000 16% FRCC 3 

Black and Low Sagebrush (R2SBDW) 10,000 32% FRCC 3 

Mountain Big Sagebrush (R2SBMT) 800 33% FRCC 2 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree (R2MSHBwt) <100 5% FRCC 3 

Stable Aspen (R2ASPN) <100 20% FRCC 2 

Wyoming Sagebrush Steppe (R2BWYse) 285,000 48% FRCC 2 

VMA D 

Basin Big Sagebrush (R2SBBB) 18,000 16% FRCC 3 

Black and Low Sagebrush (R2SBDW) 101,000 34% FRCC 2 

Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany (R2SBMT) 3,000 18% FRCC 3 

Mountain Big Sagebrush (R2SBMT) 35,000 64% FRCC 2 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree (R2MSHBwt) 6,000 29% FRCC 3 

Stable Aspen (R2ASPN) 3,000 38% FRCC 2 

Wyoming Sagebrush Steppe (R2BWYse) 28,000 64% FRCC 2 A Analysis was based on 2012 projected vegetation, used as the baseline vegetation composition for the RMP. 

Table ES- 2. Fire Rate of Spread Rating by VMA 

Rate of Spread Rating VMA A VMA B VMA C VMA D 

Extreme 0 0 0 0 

Very High 73,000 36,000 6,000 9,000 

High 134,000 449,000 248,000 52,000 

Moderate 0 <100 4,000 50,000 

Low 9,000 119,000 41,000 34,000 

Very Low 0 3,000 6,000 50,000 

Non-Burnable 6,000 22,000 8,000 15,000 

Every wildland fire is managed to protect firefighters and the public, protect values as defined in a land 

use plan, and minimize cost, in priority order. While human life is the single overriding priority, other 

values could include communities, property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources. 

Suppression strategy on wildland fires is in accordance with management objectives and based on fire 

location and current and expected conditions for weather, fuels, and fire behavior. The strategy, 

Appropriate Management Response (AMR), can vary from monitoring when fire spread and values are 

predicted to be very low to responding with all available suppression resources when spread and values 

ES-27 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Executive Summary	 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

are predicted to be high. Allowing a wildland fire that has been caused by lightning to fulfill its role in the 

ecosystem and accomplish resource objectives, Wildland Fire Use, is not allowed under current land 

management direction. 

Habitat for Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Plants and Animals 

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

post-fire vegetation treatments, weather, livestock grazing, invasive plant introduction and spread, and 

cross-country motorized vehicle use. For management and analysis purposes, the 55 vegetation 

communities in the planning area were grouped into five VSGs. Vegetation communities were grouped 

into VSGs based on dominant vegetation and community structure, since communities with similar 

dominant vegetation and community structure were expected to have similar management objectives. 

For management and analysis purposes, the 55 vegetation communities in the planning area were 

grouped into five VSGs; Map 9 displays VSGs present in 2008. Vegetation communities were grouped 

into VSGs based on the dominant vegetation and community structure as well as similarity in 

management objectives: 

 Annual communities – dominated by invasive annual grasses; includes communities with and 

without a shrub overstory. 

 Non-native Perennial communities – dominated by non-native perennial grasses; some also have 

an overstory of four-wing saltbush or rabbitbrush. 

	 Non-native Understory communities – dominated by non-native perennial grasses in the 

understory; have an overstory of Wyoming big sagebrush, basin big sagebrush, black sagebrush, or 

low sage. 

	 Native Grassland communities – dominated by native grasses; do not have a shrub overstory. 

	 Native Shrubland communities – dominated by native grasses in the understory; have a shrub 

overstory; also includes aspen, juniper, and mountain mahogany communities which are present in 

small, scattered inclusions within other native shrubland communities. 

	 Unvegetated areas – include breaks, barren areas, sand dunes, and Recent Burn vegetation 

communities, which may be present for up to two years following a fire. 

Large wildland fires occurred in 2007, following completion of a vegetation mapping effort in 2006, 

resulting in over 500,000 acres of burned vegetation that were re-mapped as Recent Burn (Appendix Q). 

In order to facilitate analysis of proposed management on upland vegetation communities, resource staff 

evaluated pre-burn vegetation conditions, impacts to vegetation resulting from fire, and vegetation 

treatments, and created a map projecting VSG composition in areas mapped as Recent Burn and 

depicted as Unvegetated VSG in 2012 (see Appendix R for protocol; Map 10). Vegetation composition 

following 2007 wildland fires (post-fire) and the 2012 projected vegetation composition (baseline) of the 

planning area by VSG are presented in Table ES- 3. The 2012 projected vegetation composition was 

used as the baseline composition throughout the RMP. Vegetation in the areas mapped as Recent Burn 

and depicted as Unvegetated VSG in Map 10 was re-mapped at the community level during the 2009 

field season; updated information will be incorporated into the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

Table ES- 3. Post-Fire and Baseline Vegetation Composition in the Planning Area by VSG (Percent) 

VSG Post-Fire Vegetation Composition Baseline Vegetation Composition 

Annual 9 9 

Non-Native Perennial 21 25 

Non-Native Understory 5 5 

Native Grassland 7 31 

Native Shrubland 26 28 

Unvegetated Areas 31 2 

No Data <1 <1 

Data include vegetation as of Fall 2007 (Appendix Q) and projected vegetation in areas burned in 2007 (baseline; see 

Appendix R for protocol). 

August 2010	 ES-28 
                                                           

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Executive Summary 

Within the planning area, riparian areas and wetlands are generally associated with streams, rivers, and 

springs or seeps. There are approximately 316 miles of perennial streams and rivers on BLM-managed 

lands within the planning area. Approximately, 85 miles (35%) of riparian areas in the planning area are at 

PFC; 128 miles (52%) are FAR, and 12 miles (5%) are NF (Table 4-1). The FAR ratings includes FAR-UP 

(51 miles, 21%), FAR-DN (30 miles, 12%), and functioning with no apparent trend (FAR-NA; 47 miles, 

19%). The condition of twenty miles (8%) of the reaches assessed was unknown.2

 The characteristics of 

riparian areas within each rating category are discussed in the sections below. 

Livestock Forage 

Currently, 188,802 AUMs of active use are authorized on the allotments within the planning area, 

including 12,154 AUMs in Saylor Creek Air Force Range (Appendix T). Interim grazing measures 

pursuant to stipulated settlement agreements (SSAs) govern 112,620 of these AUMs. In addition to 

permitted AUMs, a maximum of 17,071 AUMs of non-renewable use can be issued annually in 18 

allotments in accordance with 43 CFR 4130.6-2 and the authority of DOI appropriations acts. The 28 

allotments under the 2005 Winmill SSA (CV-04-181-S-BLW; Appendix A) and the 2 allotments under the 

2003 Williams SSA (CV-02-521-S-MHW) are only allowed active use as described in the interim 

measures. 

Actual use (grazing use that actually occurred) has varied annually based on factors such as forage 

production, resource conditions, wildfire, court decisions, and individual livestock grazing operations. 

Actual grazing use since the 1987 Jarbidge RMP has been as high as approximately 217,000 AUMs in 

1997 (a high precipitation year) and as low as approximately 109,000 AUMs in 1988 (a low precipitation 

year). Between 2002 and 2006, the average actual use was approximately 173,000 AUMs. 

Livestock Grazing 

The planning area is divided into 93 grazing allotments on 1,323,000 acres of BLM-managed lands with 

about 70 permit holders (permittees). Additionally, livestock grazing on 92,000 acres of military withdrawal 

lands is managed by BLM in accordance with Public Land Order (PLO) 1027 as amended by PLO 4902. 

Recreation 

Recreation 

There are six developed recreation sites within the planning area. None of the sites have potable water or 

trash service in the form of trashcans or dumpsters. The following list outlines these sites and their 

amenities: 

 Bruneau Canyon Overlook – Parking area, interpretive kiosks, and protective fence structures 

 Bruneau River Launch Site, East – Parking and information kiosk 

 Bruneau River Take-out – Information kiosk 

 Cedar Creek Reservoir (Roseworth Reservoir) – Parking area, vault restrooms, and docks 

 East Fork Jarbidge River Recreation Sites (4 sites) – Vault restrooms, picnic tables, and fire rings 

with grills 

 Jarbidge River Recreation Site – Parking area, launch facilities for whitewater boating, vault 

restrooms, and information kiosk 

Hunting is the major dispersed recreation use across the entire planning area. The average number of 

visitor days in pursuit of mule deer and pronghorn in the planning area was 5,554 between 2002 and 

2006 (IDFG, 2008a). In 2006, hunters spent more than 6,728 visitor days in pursuit of mule deer and 

pronghorn in the planning area (IDFG, 2008a). 

Sport fishing in the Snake River along the northern boundary of the planning area and on the Salmon 

Falls Creek and Cedar Creek Reservoirs are also popular dispersed recreation activities. Salmon Falls 

Creek Reservoir is one of the most heavily used fisheries in the Magic Valley region. The average of 

2

 Data for areas where PFC data contained discrepancies were classified as “unknown.” 

ES-29 August 2010 
 

                                                           

Executive Summary Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

annual angular effort between 1995 and 2006 was more than 72,000 hours. Peak months of fishing 

activity typically are April through October. 

Only two recognized trails exist within the planning area. The Idaho Centennial Trail is used for both 

hiking and motorized vehicles; use of the segment within the planning area is generally low because 

much of the trail is in remote terrain with difficult access. The Roberson Trail is located in the Bruneau 

Canyon, and the general landscape dictates a non-motorized use. This trail is used in the spring and 

early summer by whitewater boaters accessing the Five Mile Rapids, a series of Class IV rapids on the 

Bruneau River. 

Whitewater recreation activities on the Jarbidge and Bruneau River systems continue to be popular 

locally, regionally, and nationally. These rivers have a growing national reputation for those attracted to 

remote, wild, and spectacular canyons and a challenging whitewater boating experience. The float 

season lasts approximately one month, with the peak use occurring during the latter part of May. Water 

runoff from snowpack in the Jarbidge Mountains usually dictates the optimum flows for this activity. In 

1983, the Jarbidge FO implemented a mandatory registration system for private boaters on the Jarbidge 

and Bruneau Rivers, which provides some use data. While the Jarbidge FO administers outfitting on the 

Jarbidge and Bruneau Rivers, maintenance of facilities and accountability for visitor use are currently 

shared with the Bruneau FO of the Boise District. 

Transportation and Travel Management 

All-terrain vehicle (ATV), utility vehicle (UTV), and off-road motorcycle use are some of the fastest 

growing recreation opportunities in the planning area. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use has become a 

popular method of recreation as well as a means of transportation while pursuing other forms of 

recreation such as hunting, fishing, or camping. Antler gathering is an example of an increasing OHV use. 

Antlers shed by big game in their winter and spring ranges across most of the southern portion of the 

planning area are sought by collectors, as a recreational hobby and for art. Many people participating in 

this activity use OHVs to cover more ground than can be done on foot or horseback. The Jarbidge FO 

has received reports of people who “grid” areas to increase their success in finding antlers. 

There are approximately 4,300 miles of mapped transportation routes (i.e., roads, primitive roads, and 

trails) in the planning area. Based on field observations and recent aerial photography, the actual amount 

of transportation routes could be twice as high as the amount mapped. The transportation system 

includes BLM and county system roads and primitive roads. Some BLM and county system roads receive 

regular maintenance. County roads are usually constructed and maintained to higher standards than BLM 

roads and provide the local road systems for access to and through BLM lands, supporting a higher 

volume of traffic than other roads in the planning area. These roads are maintained by the six local 

highway districts and, in some areas, by the USAF if higher standards are required for operations 

connected with training ranges. 

Energy Development 

Land Use Authorizations 

Renewable energy includes geothermal,3 wind, hydroelectric, and solar power. There are no renewable 

energy developments on public lands within the planning area; however, the Jarbidge FO has had several 

inquiries for wind energy-related interests on public land within the past several years. The only 

authorized use granted to date is the 2007 Renewable Energy Systems (RES) ROW for wind velocity test 

towers on China Mountain. The authorization allowed RES to construct four anemometer sites within the 

13,000-acre ROW area. In May 2007, RES submitted an application to construct a wind farm in portions 

of the Jarbidge and Wells FOs. The proposed wind development project is being analyzed in a separate 

EIS and would produce 425 megawatts on approximately 30,000 acres; the proposed development would 

occur on approximately 13,000 acres managed by the Jarbidge FO. 

3

 Geothermal resources are considered leasable minerals and are addressed in the Minerals section. 

August 2010 ES-30 
	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Executive Summary 

Additional ROW applications are being submitted for ancillary uses to energy-related facilities on private 

and public land. The Jarbidge FO received an application for an upgrade on a road that will support 

another wind farm on private land in the Bell Rapids area. 

Under current conditions and technology, the planning area is not understood to have potential for 

commercial solar energy development. Solar resources in the planning area do not exceed 6 kWh/m2

/day 

(NREL, 2009a); therefore, the planning area is not currently identified as a high-priority state for solar 

energy development (NREL, 2009b) (BLM IM 2007-097). 

Leasable Minerals 

There is currently no leasable mineral activity within the planning area. As described in the Oil and Gas 

Potential Report (BLM, 2009a), three wells were drilled in 1950 for the purpose of exploring for oil and 

gas in the planning area, all in the extreme northwest corner; no showings of gas or oil were encountered 

at any interval in any of the three wells, the deepest of which was drilled to 3,808 feet. Another well 

approximately 8 miles north of the planning area was drilled to a depth of 9,678 feet, but did not 

encounter oil or gas. Based on the geology of the planning area and where interest in leasing has 

recently been expressed, the areas with potential for oil and gas leasing in the planning area include the 

Cedar Creek/China Mountain areas and the northwest corner of the planning area (Map 90); these areas 

are referred to as the potential oil and gas areas. However, even though the potential for leasing in these 

areas is slightly higher than the potential in the rest of the planning area, the potential is still considered to 

be low. 

There are no wells in the planning area for geothermal power, only wells on private land for direct use for 

aquaculture, recreation, and heating. Other wells within the planning area that encountered geothermal 

water were drilled for other purposes, such as irrigation. As described in the Geothermal Potential Report 

(BLM, 2009b), the area near Bruneau Hot Springs, determined to have high potential for geothermal 

resources, has high potential for leasing. There is also potential for leasing in the northern third of the 

planning area, determined to have medium potential for geothermal resources (Map 91); these areas with 

high and medium potential are referred to as potential geothermal areas. The probability of full 

geothermal resource development and production occurring in the planning area during the next 20 years 

is higher than for oil and gas development but still considered low. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

The Jarbidge FO contains three ACECs: 

	 The Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC contains 85,000 acres of BLM-managed land in the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Canyons and the surrounding uplands. The ACEC is located along the Bruneau River from 

near Crowbar Gulch upstream to the Jarbidge FO boundary, along the Jarbidge River from the 

Bruneau River confluence to the Buck Creek confluence, and along the East Fork of the Jarbidge 

River from the Jarbidge River confluence to the FO boundary. Portions of Clover, Deep, Cougar, 

Dorsey, Columbet, and Dave Creeks are within the ACEC. Values meeting relevance and importance 

criteria include cultural values, scenic values, fish and wildlife resources (bighorn sheep, bull trout, 

and redband trout), and natural systems or processes (Bruneau River phlox and the riparian system). 

	 The Salmon Falls Creek ACEC encompasses 2,700 acres of BLM-managed land. The ACEC is 

located along Salmon Falls Creek from the Jarbidge FO boundary to the west canyon rim, extending 

from Balanced Rock Crossing Park south to the private land near Salmon Falls Creek Dam. Values 

meeting relevance and importance criteria include scenic values, fish resources (redband trout), and 

natural systems or processes (upland vegetation). 

	 The Sand Point ACEC encompasses 810 acres of BLM-managed lands. The ACEC is located south 

of the Snake River near Hammett, Idaho. The ACEC extends from the high water mark along the 

Snake River about 0.5 to 0.75 miles south into the upland plateau. Values meeting relevance and 

importance criteria include historic and cultural values and natural systems or processes 

(paleontological and geological resources). 

Several ACECs were nominated for the revised Jarbidge RMP and were found to meet criteria for 

relevance and importance: 

ES-31 August 2010 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Executive Summary	 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

	 Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC (Expanded Boundary) – The proposed extensions to the existing 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC would encompass about 38,000 acres of BLM-managed land; if added to 

the existing ACEC, the new ACEC would total 123,000 acres of BLM-managed land. The proposed 

extensions include the remainder of the Jarbidge River and Bruneau River-Sheep Creek WSAs not 

already within the existing ACEC, as well as bull trout habitat along the Jarbidge River south of the 

Jarbidge Forks, Dave Creek, Jack Creek, and Buck Creek. The eastern boundary of the existing 

ACEC south of Three Creek Highway would be modified to follow a road. The same values meet 

relevance and importance criteria in the proposed extensions as in the existing ACEC, with the 

addition of Davis peppergrass as a component of natural systems or processes. 

	 Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC (Reduced Boundary) – The proposed reduced boundary of the BruneauJarbidge ACEC would encompass 57,000 acres of BLM-managed land. The majority of the proposed 

ACEC lies within the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons; some of the adjacent uplands are included 

within the boundary as well. Portions of the existing ACEC that would not be included within this 

boundary include areas south of the Jarbidge River WSA on the Bruneau River, Jarbidge River and 

its East Fork, as well as areas north of Sheepshead Draw. The same values meet relevance and 

importance criteria in the reduced boundary as in the existing ACEC, except bull trout habitat would 

no longer occur within the ACEC boundary. 

	 Inside Desert ACEC (Large Boundary) – The proposed large boundary of the Inside Desert ACEC 

would encompass 73,000 acres of BLM-managed land. The proposed ACEC would be located 

between Clover Creek and the Jarbidge River and from Clover Butte south to approximately Poison 

Butte and would be adjacent to the Juniper Butte Range. The proposed large ACEC boundary was 

drawn along existing pasture fences to make the proposed ACEC manageable. Values meeting 

relevance and importance criteria include natural systems or processes (slickspot peppergrass). 

	 Inside Desert ACEC (Small Boundary) – The proposed small boundary of the Inside Desert ACEC 

would encompass 41,000 acres of BLM-managed land. The proposed ACEC would be located from 

Clover Butte south to approximately Middle Butte in several pastures near the Juniper Butte Range. 

The slickspot peppergrass values within the small boundary of the proposed ACEC are the same as 

those documented for the large boundary of the proposed Inside Desert ACEC; however, the small 

boundary would encompass only 50% of occupied slickspots in the planning area. 

	 Jarbidge Foothills ACEC (Large Boundary) – The proposed large boundary of the Jarbidge 

Foothills ACEC would encompass 136,000 acres of BLM-managed land in the southern third of the 

planning area. The boundary would run from the canyon of the East Fork of the Jarbidge River to 

Salmon Falls Creek and from Three Creek Highway to the southern boundary of the Jarbidge FO. 

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include cultural values, fish or wildlife resources 

(redband trout, spotted frog, sage-grouse), and natural systems or processes (upland vegetation). 

	 Jarbidge Foothills ACEC (Small Boundary) – The proposed small boundary of the Jarbidge 

Foothills ACEC would encompass 66,000 acres of BLM-managed land and would be located in the 

southeast corner of the planning area. The boundary would run from Salmon Falls Creek west to the 

House Creek Allotment, and from Three Creek Highway south to the southern boundary of Jarbidge 

FO. This boundary for the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC would focus management on a block of primarily 

BLM-managed lands and would reduce the amount of private land that would be in the ACEC 

boundary. The same values meet relevance and importance criteria in the small boundary of the 

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC as in the large boundary, except spotted frog would no longer occur within 

the ACEC boundary. 

	 Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC – The proposed Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC would encompass 

1,100 acres of BLM-managed land. The proposed ACEC would be located along the lower Bruneau 

River within the northernmost portion of the Bruneau River-Sheep Creek WSA. Values meeting 

relevance and importance criteria include fish or wildlife resources (Bruneau Hot springsnail) and 

natural systems or processes (special status plants and thermal seeps and springs). 

	 Middle Snake ACEC – The proposed Middle Snake ACEC would encompass 7,500 acres of BLMmanaged lands; these lands are separated in several areas by blocks of private land. The proposed 

ACEC would be located from an area southeast of King Hill to the Hagerman Fossil Beds National 

Monument. The proposed ACEC would extend from the Jarbidge FO boundary in the Snake River to 

the canyon rim or to existing fences on the adjacent uplands. Values meeting relevance and 

August 2010	 ES-32 
	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Executive Summary 

importance criteria include fish or wildlife resources (Snake River snails, Shoshone sculpin, and white 

sturgeon) and natural systems or processes (special status plants). 

	 Sagebrush Sea ACEC – The Sagebrush Sea ACEC would encompass 958,000 acres of BLMmanaged land, roughly the southern two-thirds of the planning area. It would extend from the 

Bruneau River on the west to Salmon Falls Creek on the east. Its southern boundary would follow the 

southern boundary of the Jarbidge FO. The northern boundary would follow the road that runs from 

Balanced Rock to Crows Nest to Clover Crossing, then follow Clover Creek along its east and north 

canyon rims to Clover Creek’s confluence with the Bruneau River. Values meeting relevance and 

importance criteria include cultural values, fish or wildlife resources (bull trout, redband trout, spotted 

frog, sage-grouse, and bighorn sheep), and natural systems or processes (slickspot peppergrass, 

Davis peppergrass, and Bruneau River phlox). 

	 Sand Point ACEC (Expanded Boundary) – One additional boundary configuration of the Sand Point 

ACEC was nominated. The proposed expanded boundary of the Sand Point ACEC would include the 

810 acres of the existing Sand Point ACEC as well as the Morgan property, an additional 140 acres 

between the existing ACEC and the Snake River. The Morgan property was acquired by BLM in 2002 

because the relevant and important values in the existing ACEC extended onto this property and the 

previous landowner wanted these values preserved. The same values meet relevance and 

importance criteria in the proposed expanded boundary of the Sand Point ACEC as in the existing 

ACEC. 

Environmental Consequences

Chapter 4 analyzes the environmental consequences, also referred to as “impacts” or “effects,” predicted 

to occur as result of implementing the proposed management actions and allocations for each alternative 

in Chapter 2. They are presented by identifying the likely direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on 

resources, resource uses, special designations, and social and economic conditions. Each management 

action that is expected to impact a specific resource, resource use, special designation, or social or 

economic feature is analyzed. Where data are limited, professional judgment is used to project 

environmental impacts. Professional judgment is based on observation, experience, analysis of 

conditions, and responses in similar areas. 

The scope of the impact analysis presented in this chapter is commensurate with the level of detail of the 

actions presented in Chapter 2 and the availability and/or quality of data necessary to assess impacts. 

Current conditions in the planning area, as described in Chapter 3, serve as the baseline for 

characterizing impacts from the action alternatives. 

The impact analysis is designed to show relative differences in the alternatives as they pertain to specific 

resources, resource uses, special designations, and social and economic conditions and is not intended 

to predict the exact amount, timing, or location of effects that could occur should the alternative be 

selected for implementation. The following table displays impacts for each alternative by planning issue. 

ES-33 August 2010 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ES-34 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Vegetation (Upland and Riparian) Fuels Treatments, Fire Rehabilitation, and Fire Suppression The number of humancaused fires in the No Action Alternative would remain static or increase due to the combined impacts from land use authorizations, transportation and travel, and recreation actions and the lack of prevention actions. 

The number of humancaused fires would decrease overall. The suppression actions in Alternative I would be second best at decreasing the number of humancaused fires. This effect would be augmented by travel management actions, but offset by recreation and land use authorizations management actions. 

The number of humancaused fires would decrease overall. The suppression actions in Alternative II would be best at reducing the number of human-caused fires. This effect would be augmented by recreation management actions, but offset by travel and land use authorizations management actions. 

The number of humancaused fires would increase overall. Even though the suppression actions in Alternative III would be best at reducing the number of human-caused fires, this effect would be offset by transportation and travel, recreation, and land use authorizations management actions. 

The number of humancaused fires could incrat a slower rate than evalternative except for Alternative V. Even ththe suppression actionAlternative IV reduce number of human-caufires the least of all the alternatives, this effect would be offset by transportation and travrecreation, and land usauthorizations manageactions. 

In the short term, the trend toward large fires would continue. Few suppression actions are identified to reduce fire size, and no treatments would move vegetation toward fuels with a lower rate of spread. 

In the short term, fire size would decrease through suppression actions, although to a lesser degree than Alternatives II and III. This would be offset by treatments on only 3% of the planning area moving vegetation toward fuels with a lower rate of spread. 

In the short term, fire size would decrease through suppression and livestock grazing actions. This would be augmented by treatments on 5% of the planning area moving vegetation toward fuels with a lower rate of spread. 

In the short term, fire size would decrease through suppression actions and livestock grazing actions. This would be augmented by treatments on 6% of the planning area moving vegetation toward fuels with a lower rate of spread. 

In the short term, fire swould continue to incruntil FRCC is improvedue to suppression actireducing fire size least all the alternatives and reduced levels of livesgrazing. This would be offset by treatments on of the planning area moving vegetation towfuels with a lower rate spread. 

Over the long term, fire size would continue an upward trend. Vegetation treatments would not improve FRCC, with no increase in acres similar to S-Class reference conditions as compared to the baseline; livestock grazing management may inhibit improvement in 

Over the long term, fire size would decrease due to moderate improvement in FRCC. Vegetation treatments would improve FRCC on 300,000 acres; livestock grazing management is least likely to either inhibit or heighten improvement in FRCC. Approximately 4,000 acres 

Over the long term, with no change to FRCC, fire size would return to an upward trend. Vegetation treatments and livestock grazing would play the least role in improving FRCC with no increase in acres similar to S-Class reference conditions as compared to the baseline. 

Over the long term, fire size would continue an upward trend, although to a lesser degree than the No Action Alternative and Alternative II due to marginal improvement in FRCC. Vegetation treatments would improve FRCC on 180,000 acres; livestock grazing 

Over the long term, firsize would decrease dumajor improvement in FRCC. Vegetation treatments would imprFRCC on 373,000 acrelivestock grazing management would heighten improvement FRCC. Approximately 4,000 acres of fuels 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ES-35 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

FRCC. No treatments are identified for WUI. 

of fuels treatments in WUI would be implemented. 

Among the alternatives, Approximately 5,000 acres of fuels treatments in WUI would be implemented. 

management would further inhibit improvement in FRCC over the long term. Approximately 6,000 acres of fuels treatments in WUI would be implemented. 

treatments in WUI wobe implemented; improvements in overaFRCC would also benWUI by reducing fire in the long term. 

FRCC by Vegetation Type by VMA Following Full Implementation of the Plan (All Vegetation Types Currently as Shown under the No 

VMA A: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 3 

VMA A: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 3 

VMA A: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 3 

VMA A: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 3 

VMA A: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 

VMA B: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 2 

VMA B: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 1 

VMA B: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 2 

VMA B: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 2 

VMA B: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 

VMA C: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 2 Basin big sagebrush 3 Black/low sagebrush 3 

VMA C: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 1 Basin big sagebrush 2 Black/low sagebrush 2 

VMA C: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 2 Basin big sagebrush 3 Black/low sagebrush 3 

VMA C: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 1 Basin big sagebrush 2 Black/low sagebrush 2 

VMA C: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe Basin big sagebrush Black/low sagebrush 

VMA D: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 2 Basin big sagebrush 3 Black/low sagebrush 2 Mtn big sagebrush 2 

VMA D: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 2 Basin big sagebrush 1 Black/low sagebrush 2 Mtn big sagebrush 2 

VMA D: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 2 Basin big sagebrush 3 Black/low sagebrush 2 Mtn big sagebrush 2 

VMA D: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 1 Basin big sagebrush 2 Black/low sagebrush 2 Mtn big sagebrush 1 

VMA D: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe Basin big sagebrush Black/low sagebrush Mtn big sagebrush 

Habitat for Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Plants and Animals Acres of vegetation subgroups in the planning area following vegetation treatments are displayed below: 

Annual 112,000 Annual 75,000 Annual 47,000 Annual 53,000 Annual 112,

Non-Native Perennial 431,000 Non-Native Perennial 299,000 Non-Native Perennial 448,000 Non-Native Perennial 415,000 Non-Native Perennial 431,

Non-Native Understory 7,000 Non-Native Understory 40,000 Non-Native Understory 34,000 Non-Native Understory 64,000 Non-Native Understory 7,

Native Grassland 424,000 Native Grassland 211,000 Native Grassland 424,000 Native Grassland 230,000 Native Grassland 424,

Native Shrubland 367,000 Native Shrubland 715,000 Native Shrubland 388,000 Native Shrubland 568,000 Native Shrubland 367,

Acres of seral stages in the planning area following vegetation treatments are displayed below: 

Early 424,000 Early 213,000 Early 426,000 Early 232,000 Early 152,

Mid 91,000 Mid 437,000 Mid 110,000 Mid 295,000 Mid 581,

Late 264,000 Late 264,000 Late 264,000 Late 259,000 Late 264,

Uncharacteristic 549,000 Uncharac- teristic 414,000 Uncharac- teristic 528,000 Uncharac- teristic 532,000 Uncharac- teristic 331,
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ES-36 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

The No Action Alternative would increase the relative proportion of acreage occupied by non-native perennial communities while maintaining proportions of annual, native grassland, and native shrubland communities and reducing proportions of non-native understory communities. 

Alternative I would create a landscape with greater species diversity and structural complexity compared to the No Action Alternative and Alternatives II and III. This diversity would promote improved landscape functions over 67% of the planning area, including water and nutrient cycling and soil stabilization. 

Alternative II would create a relatively homogeneous landscape dominated by early-seral and uncharacteristic vegetation in VMAs A, B, and C. Limited species and structural diversity in areas dominated by non-native perennial vegetation would decrease water and nutrient cycling compared to shrubland communities. 

Alternative III would create a landscape with more species diversity and structural complexity than would be created under either the No Action Alternative or Alternative II. Native communities, particularly shrublands, would be less continuous than in Alternatives I, IV, or V. 

Alternative IV would create a landscape dominated by native communities with a vaof seral stages and the lowest proportion of uncharacteristic vegetaof all the alternatives. would improve landscincluding water and nutrient cycling and sostabilization. 

The lack of prioritization for wildland fire suppression would perpetuate the current trend of native shrubland loss. 

Fire management priorities would promote protection of existing and restored native shrubland communities; however, critical suppression priorities would likely result in continued loss of native shrublands. 

Fire management priorities would promote protection of native grassland and non-native perennial communities with no prioritization for shrubland communities. Continued loss of native shrublands is likely. 

Fire management priorities would promote protection of native shrubland, as well as native grassland and non-native perennial communities and would reduce the potential for loss for existing shrubland patches. 

Fire management priorwould promote the protection of existing arestored native shrublacommunities. Critical suppression priorities would not be adequate retain all native communities; howevernative grasslands woulrelatively resilient if burned. 

Livestock management actions would promote uniform use of perennial grass and dominance by non-native perennial and short-stature, early- and mid-seral grasses. 

Livestock management actions would result in moderate, uniform use that would tend to reduce structural complexity for perennial herbaceous plants. 

Livestock management actions would promote uniform use of perennial grass and long-term dominance by non-native perennial and short-stature, early- and mid-seral grasses. 

Livestock management actions would result in moderate, uniform use that would tend to reduce structural complexity for perennial herbaceous plants. 

Livestock managemenactions coupled with vegetation treatments would result in greater structural complexity fboth woody and herbaceous vegetation compared to the No AAlternative and Alternatives I, II, and I

Designation of 77% of the planning area as open to cross-country motorized vehicle use would result in continued creation of unplanned routes, fragmentation of plant 

While cross-country motorized vehicle use and route density would decrease compared to the No Action Alternative, disturbance associated with fuel breaks and livestock 

While cross-country motorized vehicle use would decrease compared to the No Action Alternative, increased allocations for livestock grazing as well as travel 

While cross-country motorized vehicle use would decrease, route density would remain similar to the No Action Alternative. Disturbance associated with fuel breaks 

Cross-country motorizvehicle use, route densdisturbance associated fuel breaks and livestomanagement would be reduced compared to tNo Action Alternative 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

communities, and introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

management would be similar to the No Action Alternative or slightly increased. This would result in localized degradation of plant communities that could expand. 

associated with commodity use would increase the amount of disturbed areas. This would result in localized degradation of plant communities and would increase the potential for expansion. 

and livestock management would be greater compared to the No Action Alternative and Alternatives I, IV, and V. This would result in localized degradation of plant communities. 

Alternatives I, II, and IThis would reduce the potential for localized degradation of plant communities and expansion of disturbed areas. 

The No Action Alternative has no objectives to maintain or improve PFC 

PFC objectives include:  145 miles at PFC  80 miles toward PFC 

PFC objectives include:  85 miles at PFC  140 miles toward PFC 

PFC objectives include:  183 miles at PFC  42 miles toward PFC 

PFC objectives include 183 miles at PFC  42 miles toward PF

The ARMS does not apply The ARMS applies and would mitigate impacts from authorized and allowed uses. The No Action Alternative would result in the greatest potential to reduce habitat condition and PFC ratings of all alternatives and is the least likely to attain habitat condition and riparian objectives in the life of the plan. 

Alternative I is the third most likely to attain habitat condition and riparian objectives in the life of the plan. 

Alternative II is the fifth most likely to attain habitat condition and riparian objectives and would result in the fewest miles of riparian area at PFC within the life of the plan. 

Alternative III is the fourth most likely to attain habitat condition and riparian objectives in the life of the plan. The attainment of the riparian objectives is less likely due to the increased resource uses in addition to the enhanced wildland fire suppression infrastructure. 

Alternative IV is most likely to attain habitat condition and riparian objectives in the life oplan. Alternative IV whave fewer areas availfor authorized uses and wildland fire infrastrucActive restoration is mlikely to achieve restoration objectives ain a shorter timeframe passive restoration. 

Livestock Forage Forage Available for Livestock at Initial and Full Implementation of the Plan Based on Areas Available for Livestock Grazing, Vegetati

and 2006 Vegetation Production Data (for Comparison Purposes Only) Initial implementation: 

200,000 AUMs 

Full implementation: 

160,000-260,000 AUMs 

Initial implementation: 

194,000-267,000 AUMs 

Full implementation4: 

196,000-269,000 AUMs 

Initial implementation: 

352,000-427,000 AUMs 

Full implementation: 

394,000-479,000 AUMs 

Initial implementation: 

279,000-352,000 AUMs 

Full implementation: 

302,000-382,000 AUMs 

Alternative IV-A: Initial implementation

100,000-156,000 A

Full implementation: 

89,000-141,000 A

Alternative IV-B: Initial implementation

103,000-161,000 A

Full implementation: 

92,000-145,000 A

4 For all action alternatives, reflects the impact of vegetation treatments on forage availability. 

ES-37 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ES-38 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Livestock Grazing The No Action alternative has a low level of limitation on infrastructure for livestock management. 

Alternative I provides a moderate level of limitation on infrastructure for livestock management. 

Same as the No Action Alternative. 

Same as the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative IV providehigh level of limitation infrastructure for livesmanagement. 

The level of effort required to minimize conflicts with livestock grazing would be low with regard to resources and high with regard to other uses. 

The level of effort required to minimize conflicts with livestock grazing would be low with regard to resources and other uses. 

Same as the No Action Alternative. 

A moderate amount of effort would be required to minimize conflicts with livestock grazing with regard to resources and other uses. 

Same as Alternative II

Recreation Recreation Areas with focused recreation management would not change (77,000 acres). However, managing the SRMAs without clearly established boundaries does not address the existing or anticipated increase in demand of the recreational resources. 

The SRMAs proposed in Alternative I would provide the broadest range of activity type among all alternatives, maintaining or enhancing existing opportunities. Areas with focused recreation management would increase to 342,000 acres. 

The SRMAs proposed in Alternative II would maintain or enhance some existing opportunities, while minimizing conflict with resource uses. Areas with focused recreation management would decrease to 21,000 acres. 

The SRMAs proposed in Alternative III would maintain or enhance existing opportunities. Areas with focused recreation management would decrease to 56,000 acres. 

The SRMAs proposed Alternative IV would maintain or enhance existing opportunities. Areas with focused recreation managemenwould increase to 205,acres. 

The type, number, and setting of motorized recreation opportunities would be maintained. 

The type, number, and setting of motorized recreation opportunities would be enhanced. 

The type, number, and setting of motorized recreation opportunities would be limited. 

The type, number, and setting of motorized recreation opportunities would be enhanced. 

The type, number, and setting of motorized recreation opportunitiewould be enhanced. 

The type, number, and 

setting of non-motorized recreation opportunities would be limited. 

The type, number, and 

setting of non-motorized recreation opportunities would be enhanced. 

The type, number, and setting of non-motorized recreation opportunities would be limited. 

The type, number, and setting of non-motorized recreation opportunities would be maintained. 

The type, number, and setting of non-motorizrecreation opportunitiewould be enhanced. 

Transportation and Travel Management Travel management would be the least restrictive. 

Travel management would be the third most restrictive but would continue to provide access within the majority of the planning area. 

Travel management would be the second least restrictive. 

Travel management would be the third least restrictive. 

Travel management wbe the second most restrictive but would continue to provide acwithin the majority of planning area. 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ES-39 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Route density is expected to increase as a result of the number of acres open to cross-country motorized vehicle use and available for ROW development. 

Route density is expected to decrease overall; 49% of the planning area is expected to remain at the same route density, and 48% is expected to experience a decrease in route density. 

Route density is expected to increase overall; 15% of the planning area is expected to remain at the same route density, and 85% is expected to experience an increase in route density. 

Route density is expected to remain mostly unchanged; 98% of the planning area is expected to remain at the same route density, and 2% is expected to experience an increase in route density. 

Route density is expecto decrease overall; 2% the planning area is expected to experience increase in route densiand 98% is expected to experience a decrease route density. 

Energy Development Land Use Authorizations Availability of Public Lands for ROW Developments (Acres) 

Open 1,263,000 Avoidance 0 Exclusion 110,000 

Open 476,000 Avoidance 803,000 Exclusion 95,000 

Open 493,000 Avoidance 786,000 Exclusion 94,000 

Open 493,000 Avoidance 786,000 Exclusion 95,000 

Open 457,Avoidance 768,Exclusion 148,

98% of the high-interest area for utility development would be available for development. 

92% of the high-interest area for utility development would be available for development. 

100% of the high-interest area for utility development would be available for development. 

92% of the high-interest area for utility development would be available for development. 

91% of the high-interearea for utility development would be available for developm

67% of lands within 2 miles of areas rated Fair or higher for wind resources would be available for utility-scale development. 

26% of lands within 2 miles of areas rated Fair or higher for wind resources would be available for utility-scale development. 

69% of lands within 2 miles of areas rated Fair or higher for wind resources would be available for utility-scale development. 

26% of lands within 2 miles of areas rated Fair or higher for wind resources would be available for utility-scale development. 

25% of lands within 2 miles of areas rated Fahigher for wind resourwould be available for utility-scale developm

Leasable Minerals Availability of Federal Mineral Estate for Mineral Leasing (Acres) 

(118,000 acres are already closed to mineral leasing by statute or public land order) 

Open 689,000 Open with Constraint 720,000 Closed 204,000 

Open 670,000 Open with Constraint 665,000 

Closed 278,000 

Open 1,355,000 Open with Constraint 46,000 Closed 212,000 

Open 1,355,000 Open with Constraint 44,000 Closed 213,000 

Alternative IV-A 

Open 634,Open with Constraint 618,Closed 360,

Alternative IV-B 

Open 648,Open with Constraint 636,Closed 329,

Constraints include NSO and seasonal restrictions for sage-grouse and big game. 

Constraints include NSO for the Oregon NHT or Kelton and Toana Freight Roads; seasonal restrictions for sagegrouse, big game, bull 

Constraints include NSO for the Oregon NHT and eligible, suitable, or designated WSRs and controlled surface use restrictions for RCAs. 

Same as Alternative II. Same as Alternative I. 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ES-40 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

trout, and redband trout; and controlled surface use restrictions for RCAs. 

Availability of Federal Mineral Estate in Potential Oil and Gas Areas for Mineral Leasing (Acres) 

Open 257,000 Open with Constraint 102,000 Closed 22,000 

Open 239,000 Open with Constraint 126,000 

Closed 15,000 

Open 353,000 Open with Constraint 24,000 Closed 4,000 

Open 352,000 Open with Constraint 23,000 Closed 5,000 

Open 242,Open with Constraint 111,Closed 27,

Availability of Federal Mineral Estate in Potential Geothermal Areas for Mineral Leasing (Acres) 

Open 358,000 Open with Constraint 53,000 Closed 124,000 

Open 385,000 Open with Constraint 37,000 

Closed 115,000 

Open 412,000 Open with Constraint 20,000 Closed 104,000 

Open 412,000 Open with Constraint 19,000 Closed 105,000 

Open 388,Open with Constraint 40,Closed 108,

In the next 20 years under the reasonably foreseeable development scenarios, approximately 90 acres would be developed for oil and gas and 20Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) The No Action Alternative would have:  3 ACECs designated  89,000 acres under 

ACEC management 

 23% of lands with 

relevant and important values under special management through ACEC designation 

Alternative I would have:  5 ACECs designated  97,000 acres under 

ACEC management 

 25% of lands with 

relevant and important values under special management through ACEC designation 

Alternative II would have:  0 ACECs designated  0 acres under ACEC 

management 

 0% of lands with 

relevant and important values under special management through ACEC designation 

Alternative III would have:  3 ACECs designated  61,000 acres under 

ACEC management 

 14% of lands with 

relevant and important values under special management through ACEC designation 

Alternative IV would h 5 ACECs designate 335,000 acres 

(Alternative IV-A) 232,000 acres (Alternative IV-B) uACEC management 

 61% (Alternative IV

and 46% (AlternativIV-B) of lands with relevant and importvalues under speciamanagement througACEC designation 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Executive Summary 

Consultation and Coordination 

Chapter 5 describes the consultation and coordination efforts by the ID Team throughout the planning 

process. The BLM planning processes for the Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS were conducted in accordance 

with the requirements of NEPA, CEQ regulations, and Department of the Interior (DOI) and BLM policies 

and regulations. NEPA and the associated regulatory/policy framework require Federal agencies to 

involve interested publics in their decision-making processes. Title II, Section 202 of FLPMA directs BLM 

to coordinate planning efforts with American Indian Tribes, other Federal agencies, and State and local 

governments as part of its land use planning process. 

ES-41 August 2010 
 

Executive Summary Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

August 2010 ES-42