CHAPTER 1: 

INTRODUCTION 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
TOC-iii August 2010

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Volume 1: Chapter 1 

Table of Contents 

Volume 1: Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Table of Contents 

1.1. Purpose and Need for the Plan ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.2. Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2. Planning Area ...................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3. Scoping Issues .................................................................................................................................... 1-4

1.3.1. Issues Addressed ......................................................................................................................... 1-4

1.3.2. Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed .............................................................................. 1-9

1.4. Planning Criteria and Constraints ..................................................................................................... 1-12

1.5. Planning Process .............................................................................................................................. 1-13

1.5.1. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs .................................................................. 1-14

1.5.2. Collaboration .............................................................................................................................. 1-15

1.6. Related Plans .................................................................................................................................... 1-19

1.7. Works Cited ....................................................................................................................................... 1-20

List of Tables 

Table 1- 1. Land and Mineral Ownership in the Planning Area ................................................................. 1-1

Table 1- 2. Agencies Invited to Establish Cooperating Agency Status for the Jarbidge RMP ................ 1-16

List of Figures 

Figure 1- 1. BLM Planning Process ......................................................................................................... 1-13

Figure 1- 2. Statement from the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation .......... 1-17
Volume 1: Chapter 1 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Table of Contents 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

August 2010 TOC-iv 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for the Plan 

1.1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

1.1.1. Introduction 

A Resource Management Plan (RMP) guides land and resource management decisions for land 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management (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 Environmental Impact Statement (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 Field Office (FO) in 

south-central Idaho and northern Nevada (Map 1). Within the planning area, BLM manages 

approximately 1,374,000 acres of public land surface (Map 2) and 1,613,000 acres of Federal mineral 

estate (Map 3) in Elmore, Twin Falls, and Owyhee Counties in Idaho and Elko County in Nevada. Table 

1- 1 provides a summary of land and mineral ownership in the planning area. Decisions made and 

management direction 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. 

Table 1- 1. Land and Mineral Ownership in the Planning Area 

Ownership Acres 

Surface 

BLM 1,368,000 

Bureau of Reclamation 6,000A 

Military 116,000B 

National Park Service 4,000 

State of Idaho 77,000 

Private 244,000 

Total Acres 1,815,000 

Subsurface 

BLM 1,613,000 

Other 202,000 

Total Acres 1,815,000 A Managed by BLM; all decisions in Chapter 2 apply. B

 Livestock grazing on the Saylor Creek Air Force Range outside of the Exclusive Use Area (EUA) is managed by BLM; 

decisions for livestock grazing management in Chapter 2 apply to those 91,568 acres. 

1.1.2. Purpose and Need for the Plan

FLPMA requires BLM to “develop, maintain, and when appropriate, revise land use plans” (43 USC 

1712(a)). In general, the purpose of this RMP is to provide a comprehensive framework for BLM’s 

management of public lands within the planning area and its allocation of resources pursuant to the 

multiple-use and sustained yield mandate of FLPMA. There is a need for this RMP in order to address a 

number of new issues that arose since the preparation of the 1987 Jarbidge RMP. 

Specifically, the purpose of the Jarbidge RMP is to provide overall management and long-term direction 

for lands and resources administered by the Twin Falls District, Jarbidge Field Office that will: 

 Maintain consistency with FLPMA, which includes: 

- Recognizing the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber and fiber from the 

public lands; 

- Preserving, where appropriate, lands in their natural condition; 

1-1 August 2010 
 

 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for the Plan Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

- Providing food and habitat for fish, wildlife and domestic animals; 

- Providing for outdoor recreation, human occupancy and use; 

 Ensure public lands are managed according to the principles of multiple use and sustained yield; 

 Provide an overview of goals, objectives, and needs associated with public land management; 

 Resolve multiple-use conflicts or issues between resource values and resource uses; 

 Maintain or improve ecosystem functions; 

 Promote diversity and resilience of biological resources including special status species; 

 Preserve important cultural, historical, and physical resources; 

 Provide opportunities for sustainable uses of public lands; and 

 Address other issues and management concerns raised during the scoping process. 

The revised Jarbidge RMP will be comprehensive in nature and will address issue categories identified 

through agency, interagency, and public scoping efforts. 

The need to revise the Jarbidge RMP arises from numerous changes in circumstances since the current 

land use plan decisions were adopted in 1987. In 2001, an evaluation of the existing RMP concluded that 

there was a need for an updated plan (BLM, 2001). The following list of specific factors illustrates the 

need for preparation of an updated RMP. 

 Changes in ecological, social, and economic conditions 

 Changes in user demands and impacts that require new management direction 

 New laws, regulations, and policies that created additional public land management considerations 

 Requirements identified in the September 30, 2005, Stipulated Settlement Agreement in the case of 

Western Watersheds Project v. Bennett et al. (Case No. CV-04-181-S-BLW) (D. Idaho). 

This RMP may result in the continuation of some existing land use planning decisions and the 

development of new land use planning decisions for issues identified internally and through public 

scoping. 

August 2010 1-2 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1: Planning Area 

1.2. PLANNING AREA 

The Jarbidge RMP 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; each has a 

population of less than 100 people. 

The Jarbidge planning area is known for its unique geology of broad, gently rolling plateau lands with 

deeply incised rivers, which provide a variety of scenic values and habitats used by numerous fish, plant, 

and wildlife species. The majority of the planning area supports sagebrush steppe and seeded 

grasslands, mostly from fire rehabilitation projects. Water availability influences the distribution of plant 

communities and is based on the rain shadow effect, distribution of soil types, slope, and aspect. Dry 

lowland areas support salt desert shrub communities, which change to sagebrush steppe with increasing 

elevation and moisture. At higher elevations, juniper, aspen, and mountain mahogany are present. A few 

areas contain limber pine and subalpine fir. Surface water is generally limited to scattered perennial 

springs and creeks. Creeks are typically located in the deeper draws and canyons. 

The planning area is located in the northern part of the Basin and Range Province of the Great Basin in 

Nevada and in the Snake River Plain, which lies in the southern portion of the Columbia River Basin in 

Idaho. The Columbia River Basin is the primary drainage basin in the northwestern United States and has 

a total drainage area of approximately 214,000 square miles (mi2

) (FWS, 1995). In July 1993, President 

Bill Clinton requested land management agencies develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based 

strategy for forest and rangelands east of the Cascade Mountains. The resulting Interior Columbia Basin 

Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) increased the scientific understanding of ecosystem 

processes and functions in the basin and led to a better awareness that many forest, range, riparian, and 

aquatic ecosystems are becoming less resilient and, as a result, some plant and animal species 

dependant on these ecosystems are declining (Quigley & Arbelbide, 1997; Wisdom, et al., 2000). 

ICBEMP provides a regional framework for public lands management throughout the Columbia River 

Basin and is being used as a reference in the revision of the Jarbidge RMP. 

The planning area is currently managed under the 1987 Jarbidge RMP and its 1990, 1998, and 2005 

amendments. The boundary for the planning area has changed from the area covered by the 1987 RMP. 

Approximately 250,000 acres north of the Snake River, now in the Four Rivers FO, and approximately 

40,000 acres to the northeast, now part of the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area 

(NCA), were included in the 1987 RMP, but are no longer part of the Jarbidge FO. In addition, 

approximately 110,000 acres were withdrawn to the United States Air Force (USAF) in 1952 to create the 

Saylor Creek Air Force Range and 13,000 acres were withdrawn in 1998 to create the Juniper Butte 

Range. Approximately 4,000 acres were transferred to the National Park Service by the Arizona-Idaho 

Conservation Act (PL 100-696) in 1988 to create the Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument. Acreage 

and other numbers in the 1987 RMP may not be directly comparable to the current planning effort due to 

these changes. 

1-3 August 2010 
Chapter 1: Scoping Issues Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Issues Addressed 

1.3. SCOPING ISSUES 

1.3.1. Issues Addressed 

Planning issues are topics where there are substantial, often mutually exclusive, differences in opinion as 

to how a resource or use should be managed. They reflect trade-offs associated with different land 

management strategies. Because resources and uses within the planning area are interdependent, 

issues often overlap. Issues were used to help develop alternatives in the Jarbidge RMP. The RMP also 

identifies management direction and analyzes impacts to topics not identified as planning issues; 

management direction for these topics is provided as required by the BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land 

Use Planning and generally does not vary by alternative, except as the topics relate to planning issues. 

The planning issues for the Jarbidge RMP/EIS resulted from concerns expressed during tribal 

consultation and internal and external scoping. Preliminary planning issues were presented for public 

review and comment in the January 2006 Notice of Intent (NOI; 71 FR 1551). BLM solicited additional 

public comments through scoping meetings, RMP newsletters, and the RMP website. The concerns 

expressed by the public were briefly summarized in the Scoping Report for the Jarbidge Resource 

Management Plan (BLM, 2006), and a set of draft planning issues were presented in the January 2007 

RMP newsletter. BLM continued to receive scoping comments from the public throughout the 

development of the Draft RMP/EIS. Internal scoping occurred through formal and informal meetings of the 

RMP Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team). The Analysis of the Management Situation for the Jarbidge 

Resource Management Plan (BLM, 2007) illustrates many of the concerns raised through internal 

scoping. 

All comments and concerns expressed during the scoping process were considered in the development 

of the planning issues for the Jarbidge RMP; this section presents those planning issues in greater detail. 

Each planning issue is followed by a summary of the major concerns regarding that issue expressed 

during scoping. A series of planning questions was developed for each issue to help characterize the 

major components of the issue; the answer to each question varies by one or more alternatives. Finally, 

to help the reader quickly identify how each issue is addressed throughout the alternatives, a list of the 

key differences between alternatives is presented. 

1.3.1.1. Issue 1: Vegetation (Upland and Riparian) 

Issue 1a: Fuels Treatment, Fire Rehabilitation, and Fire Suppression 

Concerns Expressed During Scoping 

	 Restore vegetation to native plant communities to reduce the threat of fire. 

	 Restore natural processes to native and non-native plant communities to reduce the threat of fire. 

	 Seed non-native perennials in targeted areas to reduce the threat of fire. 

	 Increase permitted livestock grazing use to reduce the threat of fire. 

	 Use targeted grazing, prescribed fire, greenstrips, or brush treatments to reduce fuels. 

	 Do not use targeted grazing, prescribed fire, greenstrips, or brush treatments to reduce fuels. 

	 Implement fuels treatments to protect Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). 

	 Only implement fuels treatments in WUI if private landowners have treated their own property. 

	 Do not build new or temporary fences in burned areas and pull livestock back to existing fences after 

fire. 

	 Use temporary fences to address long-term management goals. 

	 Specify removal dates for temporary facilities. 

	 Realign or reconfigure permanent fences after fire to reduce impacts to wildlife. 

	 Suppress fires using Appropriate Management Response (AMR). 

	 Designate the planning area for full suppression. 

	 Focus suppression efforts in areas of high ecological value, such as sage-grouse habitat, and areas 

August 2010	 1-4 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1: Scoping Issues 

Issues Addressed 

at risk to invasion by noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

 Aggressively suppress fires in the northern 1/3 of the planning area. 

Planning Questions 

 What types of fuels treatments will be implemented? 

 Where will fuels treatments be focused? 

 What role will temporary facilities play in fire rehabilitation? 

 Which areas will have the highest priority for fire suppression? 

Key Differences Between Alternatives 

 Types and amount of fuels treatments 

 Focus areas for fuels treatments 

 Constraints on temporary facilities 

 Critical Suppression Areas 

Issue 1b: Habitat for Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Plants and Animals 

Concerns Expressed During Scoping 

	 Focus vegetation management on fish and wildlife concerns. 

	 Focus vegetation management on livestock concerns. 

	 Focus restoration activities on maintaining existing habitat instead of increasing potential habitat. 

	 Restore the entire FO to its original natural condition. 

	 Improve special status species habitat. 

	 Maintain special status species habitat at the minimum level required to sustain the species. 

	 Maintain or restore riparian areas and wetlands to meet or exceed proper functioning condition. 

	 Maintain a mosaic of riparian functional ratings. 

	 Maintain, restore, or connect sagebrush habitats. 

	 Thin dense sagebrush stands. 

	 Restore areas through active vegetation treatments. 

	 Restore areas by managing uses. 

	 Use only native species in restoration activities. 

	 Consider using non-native species in restoration activities. 

	 Use targeted grazing as a tool in restoration activities. 

	 Do not use targeted grazing as a tool in restoration activities. 

	 Require rest after restoration activities. 

	 Do not restrict uses after restoration activities. 

	 Manage access and uses to benefit fish, wildlife, and special status species. 

	 Manage access and uses to benefit commodity use. 

	 Restore annual plant communities and seedings to native communities. 

	 Maintain existing seedings and convert annual plant communities to seedings. 

	 Emphasize prevention of new invasions over control of existing populations of noxious weeds and 

invasive plants. 

	 Emphasize control of existing populations of noxious weeds and invasive plants over prevention of 

new invasions. 

Planning Questions 

	 What are the desired outcomes for upland and riparian vegetation? 

1-5 August 2010 
Chapter 1: Scoping Issues Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Issues Addressed 

	 What tools will be used to achieve the desired outcomes for upland and riparian vegetation? 

	 What strategies will be used to address noxious weeds and invasive plants? 

	 Which areas have a high priority for restoration activities? 

	 What restrictions on uses will be used to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife? 

	 How will BLM management activities and authorized and allowed uses be managed to protect special 

status species and their habitats? 

Key Differences Between Alternatives 

	 Desired outcomes for upland and riparian vegetation 

	 Tools used to achieve desired outcomes 

	 Strategies to address noxious weeds and invasive plant species 

	 Priorities for restoration activities 

	 Use restrictions to benefit fish and wildlife 

	 Constraints on BLM management activities and authorized and allowed uses in special status species 

habitat 

Issue 1c: Livestock Forage 

Concerns Expressed During Scoping 

	 Increase the amount of forage allocated to livestock, and decrease the allocation to wildlife and 

watershed. 

	 Maintain the amount of forage allocated to livestock, wildlife, and watershed. 

	 Decrease the amount of forage allocated to livestock, and increase the allocation to wildlife and 

watershed. 

	 Maintain the amount of forage allocated to wild horses. 

	 Do not allocate forage to wild horses. 

	 Allocate 100% of shrub and forb production to watershed and wildlife. 

	 Allocate 50% of shrub and forb production to watershed and wildlife. 

	 Maintain or improve existing non-native perennial communities. 

	 Remove or restore non-native perennial communities. 

	 Increase the acres of non-native perennial communities. 

	 Use vegetation treatments, including brush control, to improve or increase forage for livestock. 

	 Do not treat vegetation solely to improve or increase forage for livestock; do not allow brush control or 

monoculture seedings. 

Planning Questions 

	 How much vegetation will be allocated to watershed, wildlife, wild horses, and livestock? 

	 How will non-native perennial communities be managed? 

	 What vegetation treatments will be allowed for maintaining, improving, or increasing forage for 

livestock? 

Key Differences Between Alternatives 

	 Amount of grass, shrub, and forb production allocated to watershed, wildlife, wild horses, and 

livestock 

	 Management for non-native perennial communities 

	 Vegetation treatments to maintain, improve, or increase forage for livestock 

August 2010	 1-6 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1: Scoping Issues 

Issues Addressed 

1.3.1.2. Issue 2: Livestock Grazing 

Concerns Expressed During Scoping 

	 Grazing should be allowed. 

	 Grazing should not be allowed. 

	 Limit domestic sheep grazing. 

	 Allow grazing in the majority in the FO. 

	 Do not allow grazing in large portions of the FO. 

	 Eliminate grazing in sensitive or degraded areas. 

	 Eliminate grazing in the least damaged areas. 

	 Eliminate or reduce grazing in areas with resource concerns such as sage-grouse, bighorn sheep, 

wild horses, special designations, weeds, riparian areas, and highly erodible soil. 

	 Allow grazing in bighorn sheep habitat. 

	 Manage livestock grazing to optimize utilization of forage. 

	 Manage livestock grazing to protect vegetation and wildlife. 

	 Minimize the impacts of grazing on water quality, weeds, wildlife, and vegetation. 

	 Allow grazing year round. 

	 Do not allow grazing year round. 

	 Do not allow grazing during the winter or during breeding and nesting periods for sage-grouse and 

migratory birds. 

	 Remove range infrastructure. 

	 Do not allow more range infrastructure. 

	 Maintain or increase range infrastructure to improve livestock management. 

	 Modify range infrastructure to reduce impacts to wild horses, wildlife, watershed, soil, visual 

resources, and other uses. 

	 Avoid decisions that may harm the financial well-being of the ranching community. 

	 Spend more money on restoration and habitat enhancement than grazing management. 

	 Recognize grazing as part of the custom, culture, and economy of rural communities within the FO. 

	 Recognize the social and economic value of non-commodity resources. 

Planning Questions 

 What areas are available for livestock grazing?
 

 How will livestock grazing be managed to meet the Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Management (S&Gs)? 

	 What constraints will be placed on livestock grazing? 

	 What range infrastructure will be allowed? 

	 How will range infrastructure be managed to improve livestock management and benefit resources? 

Key Differences Between Alternatives 

 Number of acres available for grazing 

 Constraints on livestock grazing management 

 Constraints on range infrastructure 

1.3.1.3. Issue 3: Recreation 

Concerns Expressed During Scoping 

 Allow motorized recreation throughout the FO. 

 Close large areas to motorized vehicle use and eliminate cross-country travel. 

1-7 August 2010 
Chapter 1: Scoping Issues Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Issues Addressed 

 Provide opportunities for different types of motorized recreational uses and experiences. 

 Emphasize and expand non-motorized recreational opportunities.
 

 Minimize impacts to resources from recreation.
 

 Minimize user conflicts (i.e., motorized vs. non-motorized, public land vs. private land).
 

 Maximize commercial recreation opportunities.
 

 Prohibit organized off-highway vehicle (OHV) events in the Saylor Creek Wild Horse Herd 

Management Area and special status species habitat. 

 Maintain, improve, or increase campgrounds, trails, and recreation facilities. 

 Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) should be designated. 

 SRMAs should not be designated. 

Planning Questions 

 Where will motorized recreation be allowed? 

 What constraints will be placed on recreational activities? 

 How will special recreation permits (SRPs) be managed? 

 Where will SRMAs be designated? 

Key Differences Between Alternatives 

 Number of acres with open, limited, and closed motorized travel designations 

 Constraints for recreational activities 

 Constraints on SRPs 

 SRMAs 

1.3.1.4. Issue 4: Energy Development

Concerns Expressed During Scoping 

 Prohibit wind energy projects and utility corridors. 

 Allow wind energy projects and utility corridors.
 

 Do not allow wind energy projects and utility corridors in key habitats (i.e., sage-grouse habitat). 

 Allow wind energy projects and utility corridors throughout the FO.
 

 Minimize impacts to resources, values, and existing uses from energy development. 

Planning Questions 

 How much energy development will be allowed? 

 Where will energy development be allowed? 

 What constraints will be placed upon energy development? 

Key Differences Between Alternatives 

 Acres open to energy development 

 Location of energy development areas 

 Constraints for energy development activities 

1.3.1.5. Issue 5: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

Concerns Expressed During Scoping 

 Re-designate existing ACECs. 

 Do not re-designate existing ACECs. 

August 2010 1-8 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1: Scoping Issues 

Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed 

	 Designate various numbers of new ACECs. 

	 Do not designate new ACECs. 

	 Modify ACEC boundaries. 

	 Use ACEC designation to protect unfragmented native vegetation; wildlife habitat; special status 

species; paleontological, archaeological, and historic sites; geologic features; and other resource 

values. 

	 Do not use ACEC designation to protect critical habitat. 

	 Designate ACECs of sufficient size to protect ecosystems. 

	 Do not designate ACECs that limit multiple use. 

Planning Question 

	 Which existing and proposed ACECs will be designated? 

Key Difference Between Alternatives 

	 Designated ACECs 

1.3.2. Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed

A number of comments were submitted regarding issues and concerns that are not addressed in the 

RMP because they can be addressed through policy or administrative action or because they are beyond 

the scope of the Jarbidge RMP. Comments on these items are valuable and appreciated, even though 

they will not be directly addressed in the RMP. These comments will be considered where appropriate 

when decisions are made on implementation plans, proposed projects, or day-to-day management. 

1.3.2.1. Issues Beyond the Scope of the Plan 

Certain comments were beyond the scope of the RMP. This included comments that were requests for 

actions beyond BLM’s authority or jurisdiction. For example, some participants requested that “authority” 

or “deference” be granted to Local Sage-Grouse Working Groups; while this is not within BLM’s authority, 

BLM coordinates with the groups and their recommendations were considered when developing 

alternatives and analyzing impacts. Several comments requested actions on issues that are managed by 

other Federal or State agencies, such as water rights, hunting seasons, fish stocking, wildlife 

reintroductions, animal control, and critical habitat designation, while other comments requested items 

that would require Congressional action (e.g., wilderness designation). Also included in this category 

were requests for action on public lands outside the planning area, on non-BLM managed lands in the 

planning area, or on issues that do not occur in the planning area. The Jarbidge RMP does not make 

decisions for any of these situations. 

Some comments were classified as beyond the scope of the RMP because they would be more 

appropriately addressed at the implementation level. These were often site-specific requests for particular 

projects. For example, there were several requests for specific range infrastructure and specific seasons 

of use and permitted use for livestock; these topics are discussed at a more general level in the RMP. 

There were also requests for using specific grazing use indicators and criteria (e.g., utilization, bank and 

surface alteration, stubble height) and specific livestock grazing management tools (e.g., grazing 

systems, herding, kind of livestock, stocking rates, rest, changing allotment boundaries) in specific areas 

or situations; these, too, are discussed at a more general level in the RMP. 

Many comments were about prescribed fire, fuels treatments, and fire rehabilitation. Guidelines and 

criteria for these and other types of vegetation treatment methods (e.g., mechanical, chemical, biological) 

are discussed in the RMP as part of the toolbox for vegetation management, but site-specific projects will 

be addressed at the implementation level or in response to a specific wildland fire. 

There were multiple requests for BLM to include a detailed travel management plan, including road and 

trail designation, route closures, signage, road maintenance within the RMP. The RMP addresses travel 

1-9 August 2010 
Chapter 1: Scoping Issues Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed 

August 2010 1-10 

and transportation management planning at a broader scale, including travel designations (i.e., open to 

cross-country motorized vehicle use, limited to designated routes or ways, closed to motorized vehicle 

use), Travel Management Areas (TMAs), and criteria for route designation; however, the Comprehensive 

Transportation and Travel Management Plan (CTTMP) will be completed after the signing of the Record 

of Decision (ROD) for the Jarbidge RMP. 

There were also comments requesting specific procedures, such as data collection, analysis, mitigation, 

and adaptive management, for unspecified future implementation-level actions; these are discussed in 

the context of management actions that will guide future actions. 

Other comments were considered beyond the scope of the RMP because they were requests for data 

collection or analysis that are not required in or are not relevant to the RMP and were only considered as 

they pertain to proposed alternatives. 

1.3.2.2. Issues Addressed through Administrative or Policy Action 

Some comments would be more appropriately addressed by administrative action or current laws, 

regulations, or policies. For example, comments suggesting improving communications between BLM 

and the public, collaborating with the public and other agencies, repairing broken signs, correcting 

mapping errors, or verifying property boundaries can be addressed administratively in day-to-day 

management activities. Other topics in this category include: law enforcement, BLM administrative 

boundaries, seed collection, monitoring, recreation site maintenance, and road maintenance agreements. 

Similarly, the concerns expressed in some comments can be addressed through current laws, 

regulations, or policies. Several comments provided suggestions for how to conduct the social and 

economic analyses for the RMP; while their suggestions were considered, the RMP’s social and 

economic analyses follow the process outlined in BLM Handbook H-1601-1 as agreed to in the SSA. 

There were also multiple comments regarding management of livestock grazing that are addressed by 

BLM’s grazing regulations and policies (e.g., ownership of range infrastructure, enforcement of grazing 

permit terms, qualifications for grazing permits, retirement of grazing permits, grazing fees). Other 

concerns that can be addressed by law, regulation, or policy include: BLM procedures and processes, the 

NEPA documentation required for specific actions subsequent to the ROD, timeframes for Emergency 

Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&BAR) plans, and bonding for authorized uses. 

Finally, some comments were not addressed in the RMP because it would be contrary to current law, 

regulation, or policy for BLM to address the concern expressed in the comment. This includes requests 

such as making land use plan level decisions through implementation-level plans, redefining terminology 

related to transportation, prescribing specific post-fire rest timeframes, and not recognizing valid existing 

rights. Not addressing wilderness characteristics in the RMP would conflict with direction in BLM 

Handbook H-1601-1. Requests for management of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs); eligible, suitable, or 

designated Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs); and the Oregon National Historic Trail (NHT) that would be 

inconsistent with policy were not addressed. Lastly, current BLM policy does not allow for designating 

new WSAs or updating the special features of WSAs in the land use planning process. 

1.3.2.3. Issues Addressed through Separate Environmental Analysis 

Some comments suggested the following project-level proposals be addressed through the RMP process. 

China Mountain Wind Energy Project 

While related, this applicant-driven wind development project will be analyzed separately from the 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS. Review of the China Mountain Wind Energy Project will consider the specific 

environmental impacts of that project and mitigation to address those impacts. BLM could consider the 

proposed project under any of the alternatives analyzed in this document as the Draft RMP/EIS is 

intended to analyze the impacts of a range of goals, objectives, allocations, and management actions and 

is not intended to approve or deny specific proposals. It is not anticipated that the impact of the China 

Mountain Wind Energy Project will exceed the limits of the landscape-level analysis included in the range 

of alternatives set out in the Draft RMP/EIS. 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1: Scoping Issues 

Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed 

Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

This project involves a 230/500 kilovolt (kV) kV electric transmission facility with a load capacity of 3,000 

megawatts (MW) jointly proposed by Idaho Power and Rocky Mountain Power. The project will span from 

Glenrock, WY to the proposed Hemingway Substation near Murphy, ID. While related, this applicantdriven project will be analyzed separately from the Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS. Review of the Gateway West 

Transmission Line Project will consider the specific environmental impacts of that project and mitigation to 

address those impacts. BLM could consider the proposed project under any of the alternatives analyzed 

in this document as the Draft RMP/EIS is intended to analyze the impacts of a range of goals, objectives, 

allocations, and management actions and is not intended to approve or deny specific proposals. It is not 

anticipated that the impact of the portion of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project located within 

the planning area will exceed the limits of the landscape-level analysis included in the range of 

alternatives set out in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

1-11 August 2010 
Chapter 1: Scoping Issues Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed 

1.4. PLANNING CRITERIA AND CONSTRAINTS 

Planning criteria guide the development of the RMP, ensure it is tailored to the identified issues, and deter 

unnecessary data collection and analysis. Planning criteria also streamline the plan’s preparation; 

establish standards, rules, and measures to be used; guide and direct the resolution of issues through the 

planning process; and indicate factors and data that must be considered in making decisions. 

The following general planning criteria were considered in developing the RMP. 

	 The plan will comply with all applicable laws, executive orders, regulations, and current policies, 

including, but not limited to, those referenced in Appendix B. 

	 The plan addresses the requirements for preparation of the Jarbidge RMP as outlined in the 

September 30, 2005, Stipulated Settlement Agreement in the case of Western Watersheds Project v. 

Bennett et al. (Case No. CV-04-181-S-BLW) (D. Idaho) (Appendix A). 

	 The plan will be produced in consultation with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and the ShoshoneBannock Tribes. 

	 The plan will be collaborative in nature and will involve the public throughout the process by 

considering perspectives, data, scientific literature, and other input. 

	 The plan will strive to ensure that its management decisions are complementary to other planning 

jurisdictions and adjoining properties, within the limits described by law and Federal Regulations, 

including the plans, programs, and policies of tribes, other Federal agencies, and State and local 

governments. 

	 The plan will recognize all valid existing rights. 

	 The plan will consider the quantity and quality of affected non-commodity and commodity resource 

values. 

	 The plan will consider past, present, and reasonably foreseeable uses of public and adjacent lands; 

the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of these uses; the environmental effects of management 

activities; and the social and economic values and effects. 

	 The plan will consider the existing management outlined in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP and its 

amendments. 

	 The plan will establish goals, objectives, allowable uses, and management actions as described in 

BLM Handbook H-1601-1. 

	 The plan will recognize changes in administrative boundaries and ownership since the 1987 Jarbidge 

RMP. 

August 2010	 1-12 
 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1: Planning Process 

Collaboration 

1.5. PLANNING PROCESS 

As provided in FLPMA, BLM has the responsibility to plan for and manage public lands, defined as 

Federally administered lands and interests in lands, such as mineral estate, administered by BLM. The 

process for the development, approval, maintenance, and amendment or revision of RMPs was initiated 

under the authority of Section 202(f) of FLPMA and Section 202(c) of NEPA. BLM planning regulations in 

43 CFR 1600 and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations in 43 CFR 1500 guide the 

process. Preparation of an RMP/EIS involves interrelated steps as illustrated in Figure 1- 1. 

Figure 1- 1. BLM Planning Process 

Prepare to Plan 

Analyze the Management 

Situation 

Formulate Alternatives 

Analyze Effects of Alternatives 

Select a Preferred Alternative 

Prepare a Draft RMP/EIS 

Public NOA and provide a 90+ 

Day Public Comment Period 

Prepare a Proposed RMP/Final 

Provide a 60-day Governor’s 

Consistency Review Period 

Public NOA, Provide a 30-Day 

Protect Period, and Resolve Protests 

Prepare ROD 

Implement Decision 

Monitor and Evaluate RMP 

Conduct Scoping 

Issue NOI to Prepare the 

RMP/EIS and Start Scoping 

BLM decision-making relevant to land use planning includes the following: 

	 Land Use Plans – The land use plan is a set of decisions that establish management direction for 

land within an administrative area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA. 

	 Land Use Plan Decisions – Land use plan decisions establish desired outcomes and actions 

needed to achieve them. 

1-13 August 2010 
 

	 Implementation Plans – An implementation plan in an area- or site-specific plan written to 

implement decisions made in a land use plan. Implementation plans include both activity plans and 

project plans. An activity plan usually describes multiple projects and applies best management 

practices (BMPs) to meet land use plan objectives. Examples of an activity plan include habitat 

management plans and allotment management plans. A project plan typically addresses individual 

projects or several related projects. Examples of a project plan include trail plans and recreation site 

plans. 

	 Implementation Decisions – Implementation decisions are decisions that take action to implement 

land use plan decisions. 

As the highest level in the BLM planning process, the RMP will prescribe the allocation of and general 

future management direction for the resources and uses of the public land in the FO. The RMP will also 

guide lower tiers of the planning process, implementation plans and project decisions. 

1.5.1. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs 

This Draft RMP/EIS seeks to define what resource conditions and uses should be achieved and 

maintained over time. The Draft RMP/EIS considers various approaches to use, management, and 

development, some of which may represent competing interests for the same resource base. Ultimately, 

the plan serves to define a series of desired outcomes that reflect the concerns and needs of the BLM 

and the public. 

Once approved, the revised plan will replace the 1987 Jarbidge RMP and its amendments for the lands 

within the current Jarbidge planning area. The plan covers a broad area; addresses a wide range of 

programs, concerns, and resources; and must, therefore, function at a general level. Specific actions 

required to attain the goals and objectives defined in this Draft RMP/EIS are accomplished through 

implementation-level decisions. Because planning is an ongoing and continuous process, this Draft 

RMP/EIS is a dynamic document. Future implementation plans will use the goals and objectives defined 

in this document as their starting point. Implementation plans with potential to affect the environment will 

require formal analysis in compliance with NEPA and related legislation. 

The following current BLM land use plans for lands adjacent to the planning area have been considered 

in the development of this Draft RMP/EIS: 

 Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills Management Framework Plan, 1976 

 Bruneau Management Framework Plan, 1983 

 Cascade Resource Management Plan, 1988 

 Kuna Management Framework Plan, 1983 

 Monument Resource Management Plan, 1986 

 Snake River Birds of Prey NCA Resource Management Plan, 2008 

 Twin Falls Management Framework Plan, 1981 

 Wells Resource Management Plan, 1985 

RMPs are in progress for the Bruneau FO, which will replace the Bruneau Management Framework Plan 

(MFP), and the Four Rivers FO, which will revise the Cascade RMP and replace portions of the 1987 

Jarbidge RMP and Kuna MFP. RMPs for the Shoshone, Burley, and Wells FOs are scheduled to start in 

2010; these RMPs will replace the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills and Twin Falls MFPs and revise the 

Monument and Wells RMPs, along with other management plans covering their planning areas. 

The Jarbidge RMP/EIS will strive for consistency with the following Programmatic EISs: 

 Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States Programmatic EIS1 

 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

1

 A draft of this EIS was considered as it is in progress. 

Chapter 1: Planning Process Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Collaboration 

August 2010	 1-14 
 

States Programmatic EIS, 2007 

 West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS2 

 Wind Energy Development Programmatic EIS, 2005 

ICBEMP was also considered when preparing the Draft RMP/EIS. ICBEMP was based on Presidential 

direction to develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for managing the 64 million acres of 

public lands administered by the Forest Service and BLM within the Columbia River Basin, and portions 

of the Klamath and Great Basins in Oregon. The project was based on concerns over forest and 

rangeland health, uncharacteristically intense wildland fires, threats to certain fish and wildlife species, 

and concerns about local community social and economic well-being. A Final EIS and Proposed Decision 

were published in December 2004. No basin-scale ROD has been signed, nor is one expected. 

1.5.2. Collaboration 

1.5.2.1. Tribal Relationships 

The Jarbidge FO consulted with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation and the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation throughout the RMP process. Formal governmentto-government consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes is conducted through the Fort Hall 

Business Council, coordinated with the Shoshone-Bannock environmental staff. The Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes provided the following policy statements for consideration in the RMP: 

	 “The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes exercise inherent and reserved treaty rights within their own 

authorities and responsibilities. Federal land developed campground fees, reservation systems, and 

any other fee-based campground services shall not apply to the enrolled members of the ShoshoneBannock Tribes, in accordance with Article IV of the Fort Bridge Treaty, on all unoccupied lands of the 

United States. The Treaty does not state, nor was it the intent of our leaders at the time of the signing 

of the treaty, to impose or restrict Tribal members from exercising off-Reservation rights to hunt, fish 

and gather, and the corresponding right to camp. Federal permitting requirements are contrary to the 

rights reserved by the Tribes in the Fort Bridger Treaty.” 

	 “The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribes) will pursue, promote, and where necessary, initiate efforts to 

restore the Snake River systems and affected unoccupied lands to a natural condition. This includes 

the restoration of component resources to conditions which most closely represents the ecological 

features associated with the natural riverine ecosystem. In addition, the Tribes will work to ensure the 

protection, preservation, and where appropriate-the enhancement of Rights reserved by the Tribes 

under the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 (Treaty) and any inherent aboriginal rights.” 

	 “The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes set forth the following position concerning any deposition, sale or 

transfer of federal lands, use rights or other rights in lands that may affect the Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes’ treaty rights as guaranteed by the Fort Bridger Treaty of July 3, 1868 and subsequent cession 

agreements. The Tribes oppose any federal land disposition, sales or transfers to private entities or 

state and local governments based on two fundamental reasons. First, the United States government 

entered into a solemn treaty with the Shoshone and Bannock tribal peoples in which the Tribes 

reserved certain off-reservation hunting, fishing and gathering rights which they continue to exercise 

on unoccupied lands of the United States. Subsequent to the 1868 Treaty, the Tribes ceded certain 

lands to the United States and reserved in the cession agreements certain communal rights for 

grazing and use of the public lands. Second, the United States, including its federal agencies, have a 

trust responsibility as established in the Fort Bridger Treaty and other federal laws, policies and 

executive orders to protect and preserve the rights of Indian tribes, and to consult with the Tribes prior 

to such land sales or transfers.” 

Consultation on the Jarbidge RMP with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes is conducted through the Twin Falls 

District’s established government-to-government consultation process, the Wings and Roots Native 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1: Planning Process 

Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs 

2

 A draft of this EIS was considered as it was in progress. 

1-15 August 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1: Planning Process Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Collaboration 

American Campfire. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes submitted the statement in Figure 1- 2 in response to 

the Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS. 

1.5.2.2. Intergovernmental, and Interagency Relationships

The Jarbidge FO collaborated with other Federal, State, and local agencies and governmental entities 

throughout the RMP process. A number of agencies were invited to participate in the RMP planning 

process as cooperating agencies (Table 1- 2). Seven agencies accepted the BLM’s invitation and signed 

Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) to formally establish the relationship: Idaho State Department of 

Agriculture (ISDA), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), Idaho Department of Lands (IDL), Idaho 

Department of Parks and Recreation, the National Park Service – Hagerman Fossil Beds National 

Monument, the Twin Falls County Board of Commissioners, and the Elko County Board of 

Commissioners. The Owyhee County Commissioners participated in the Jarbidge RMP through their 

existing coordination agreement with the Twin Falls District. 

Table 1- 2. Agencies Invited to Establish Cooperating Agency Status for the Jarbidge RMP 

Federal Agencies State Agencies Local Agencies 

Mountain Home Air Force Base Idaho Department of Fish and Game Elko County Board of 

Commissioners 

National Park Service – Hagerman 

Fossil Beds National Monument 

Idaho Department of Lands Elmore County Board of 

Commissioners 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

Idaho Department of Park and 

Recreation 

Owyhee County Commissioners 

US Fish and Wildlife Service – 

Boise 

Idaho Department of Transportation Three Creek Highway District 

US Fish and Wildlife Service – 

Reno 

Idaho Department of Water 

Resources 

Twin Falls County Board of 

Commissioners 

US Geological Survey – Forest and 

Rangeland Ecosystem Science 

Center 

Idaho Governor’s Office of Species 

Conservation 

US Geological Survey – Water 

Resources Division 

Idaho State Department of 

Agriculture 

Idaho State Historic Preservation 

Office 

Members of the RMP ID Team and the Twin Falls District managers conducted briefings and 

presentations on the Jarbidge RMP for the following government agencies or inter-governmental groups: 

 Elko County Board of Commissioners 

 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Jarbidge Ranger District 

 Mountain Home Air Force Base 

 Nevada Division of Wildlife 

 Owyhee County Commissioners 

 Owyhee County Natural Resources Committee 

 Twin Falls County Commissioners 

 Twin Falls County Planning Committee 

 Twin Falls County Planning and Zoning Commission 

 Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council 

 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

 FWS Bull Trout Recovery Team 

August 2010 1-16 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1: Planning Process 

Collaboration 

Figure 1- 2. Statement from the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation 

PO Box 219 Owyhee, NV. 89832 

December 16, 2009 

Statement from the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 

Of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation 

The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, headquartered at the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, have engaged in an extensive 

government-to-government consultation with the Bureau of Land Management in a collaborative effort to produce this 

Jarbidge Management Plan (RMP) through the Wings and Roots Program. It reflects a successful partnering to reflect 

the mandating of our two sovereign nations to identify our respective expectations. 

While specific cultural sites are of greatest importance to archaeologists, the tribes use the Jarbidge Resource Area and 

surrounding region as a whole for activities such as gathering medicinal and food plants, minerals, craft materials, and 

for hunting antelope, deer, badgers, rabbits, sagehens, bobcats, groundhogs, ants and anthills, birds, elk, mountain 

sheep, cougars, and a variety of small game. 

Because of the Shoshone-Paiute peoples’ ancient occupation the Jarbidge Resource Area is filled with ceremonial, 

hunting, gathering, teaching, and historical sites as well as resource-gathering areas for food, medicinal plants, and 

craft materials utilized in their daily lives. For example, ceremonies are conducted at sites in the area where certain 

tribal members’ ancestors lie buried near ancient massacre sites. Ceremonies are also conducted at sites to insure the 

health and survival of the wildlife found there. Several buttes and peaks with or without rock alignments, appear to 

have served as a lookout for early warning of cavalry and militias in former times and/or to monitor game animals’ 

movements, as well as for viewing the arrival and movements of distant family bands or groups as far as 50 miles 

away. 

For the Shoshone-Paiute, the natural world is regarded as part of many sacred cyclical patterns; therefore, words such 

as “subsistence,” “food,” “medicine,” and “use” have fundamentally and culturally distinct meanings to non-Indians 

and tribal people. For example, for the Shoshone-Paiute foods are medicines that have spiritual healing qualities for the 

body and the spirit, as well as being objects for sacred offerings to spirits. 

Beyond relationships of culture, including hunting, gathering, crafts, trade, etc., landscape features are also places of 

personal communication with the spirits and opportunities for people to enter the sacred and acquire guidance and 

help. The Shoshone-Paiute relationship to the land connects fundamental symbols and patterns of culture and human 

relationships by creating an organization that gives geography significance and intelligibility. The more central a 

geographic place is in the religious life of a group, the more numerous its symbolic representations are likely to be, as 

we see repeatedly in the culture of the Shoshone-Paiute. 

Virtually all aspects of Shoshone-Paiute culture is tied to the land, and any landscape feature can have different 

meanings and functions as sacred sites as well as sites for hunting, gathering, healing, etc. Just as the land has different 

functions and meaning, so to do rock structures. Any one rock structure can have a multitude of uses, while a group of 

structures together may have only one function or meaning. As man-made objects within a multidimensional 

landscape, rock structures must be carefully investigated as complex cultural artifacts that have complex meanings and 

functions in the culture and history of the Shoshone-Paiute. 

1-17 August 2010 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 1: Planning Process Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Collaboration 

1.5.2.3. Other Stakeholder Relationships 

Members of the ID Team and the Twin Falls District managers conducted briefings and presentations on 

the Jarbidge RMP for a variety of groups. These presentations were provided at each group’s request. 

Presentations or briefings were given to the following groups: 

 “71” Livestock Association 

 Buhl Kiwanis 

 Castleford Men’s Club 

 Idaho ATV Association Inc. 

 Idaho Congressional Delegation 

 Idaho Conservation League 

 Idaho Rivers United 

 Jarbidge Sage-Grouse Local Working Group 

 Magic Valley ATV Riders, Inc. 

 Magic Valley Trail Machine Association 

 Mayors, Administrators, and City Councils Organization 

 Mid-Snake Resource Conservation and Development Council 

 Southern Idaho Desert Racing Association 

 Three Creek Highway District 

 Treasure Valley Trail Machine Association 

 Twin Falls Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee 

 Twin Falls Monarch Lions Club 

 Twin Falls Optimist Club 

 Twin Falls Rotary Club 

 The Wilderness Society
 

The national mailing list for the Jarbidge RMP contained over 500 addresses. Organizations, businesses, 

and government agencies on the Jarbidge RMP national mailing list are listed in Appendix C. 

In addition, BLM staff engaged in regular coordination with representatives of the Plaintiffs and 

Intervenors in the case of Western Watersheds Project v. Bennett et al. (Case No. CV-04-181-S-BLW) (D.
 

Idaho). BLM mangers and staff have also been in regular contact with program leads from the Idaho BLM 

State Office as well as the Idaho BLM State Leadership. 

August 2010 1-18 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1: Related Plans 

1.6. RELATED PLANS 

According to guidance found in FLPMA and 43 CFR 1610, BLM RMPs and amendments shall be 

consistent, to the extent practical, with officially approved or adopted resource-related plans of tribal, 

other Federal agencies, and State, and local governments so long as the guidance and RMPs are 

compatible. BLM RMPs must also be consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of FLPMA and 

other Federal laws and regulations related to public lands, including Federal and State pollution control 

laws (43 CFR 1610.3-2 [a]). If these other entities do not have officially approved or adopted resourcerelated plans, BLM RMPs shall, to the extent practical, be consistent with those entities’ officially 

approved and adopted resource-related policies and programs. This consistency will be accomplished so 

long as BLM RMPs incorporate the policies, programs, and provisions of public land laws and regulations 

and Federal and State pollution control laws (43 CFR 1610.3-2 [b]). 

The Draft RMP/EIS strives for consistency with plans pertaining to lands included in and surrounding the 

planning area including, but not limited to, the following: 

Federal Agency Plans 

 Comprehensive Management and Use Plan for the Oregon and California National Historic Trails, 

1999 

 Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument General Management Plan, 1996 

 Humboldt Land and Resource Management Plan, 1986 

 Mountain Home Air Force Base Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan, 2004 

State Agency Plans 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 2005 

 Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners State Trust Lands Asset Management Plan, 2007 

 Idaho State Department of Agriculture 2008-2013 Strategic Plan 

 Idaho State Water Plan, 1996 

 Idaho Transportation Plan, 2004 

 Working for Recreation: The 2006-2010 Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan 

 2007 Idaho Energy Plan 

County Plans 

 Elko County Federal Land Use Plan, Elko County Code Title 12, Chapter 3 

 Elko County General Plan of 1971 

 Elko County Open Space Master Plan of 2006 

 Elmore County 2004 Comprehensive Growth and Development Plan 

 Owyhee County Comprehensive Plan, 2002 

 Owyhee County Natural Resources Plan, 2009 

 Twin Falls County Comprehensive Plan, 2008 

The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest is currently revising the Humboldt and Toiyabe Land and 

Resource Management Plans. The Jarbidge RMP/EIS will strive to be consistent with this planning effort 

to the extent practical. 

1-19 August 2010 
Chapter 1: Works Cited Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

1.7. WORKS CITED 

BLM. (2001). Land Use Plan Evaluation Report (pp. 5). Boise, ID: USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 

BLM. (2006). Scoping Report for the Jarbidge Resource Management Plan. Twin Falls, ID: BLM, Twin 

Falls District, Jarbidge Field Office. 

BLM. (2007). Analysis of the Management Situation for the Jarbidge Resource Management Plan. Twin 

Falls, ID: USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Jarbidge Field Office. 

FWS. (1995). Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery Plan (pp. 92). Boise, ID: Snake River Basin Office, 

Ecological Services. 

Quigley, T. M., & Arbelbide, S. J. (Eds.). (1997). An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior 

Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (Vol. III). Portland, OR: USDA, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 

US Census Bureau. (2009). State & County QuickFacts. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html 

Wisdom, M. J., Holthausen, R. S., Wales, B. C., Hargis, C. D., Saab, V. A., Lee, D. C., et al. (2000). 

Source Habitat for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale 

Trends and Management Implications. Volume 2: Group Level Results (General Technical Report 

No. PNW-GTR-485): USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

August 2010 1-20