CHAPTER 2: 

ALTERNATIVES 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Volume 1: Chapter 2
 
 

Table of Contents 

Volume 1: Chapter 2 

Alternatives 

Table of Contents 

2.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 2-1
 

2.1.1. How to Read This Chapter ........................................................................................................... 2-1
 

2.1.2. Alternative Development Process ................................................................................................ 2-4
 

2.1.3. Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ................................................................................ 2-5
 

2.1.4. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis ...................................2-14
 

2.1.5. Rationale for the Identification of the Preferred Alternative .......................................................2-17
 

2.2.Tribal Rights and Interests ................................................................................................................. 2-18
 

2.3. Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 2-19
 

2.3.1. Air and Atmospheric Values ....................................................................................................... 2-19
 

2.3.2. Geologic Features ...................................................................................................................... 2-20
 
 

2.3.3. Soil Resources ........................................................................................................................... 2-21
 
 

2.3.4. Water Resources ....................................................................................................................... 2-24
 
 

2.3.5. Vegetation Communities ............................................................................................................ 2-25
 
 

2.3.5.1. Upland Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 2-25
 
 

2.3.5.2. Riparian Areas and Wetlands ............................................................................................. 2-54
 
 

2.3.6. Fish and Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 2-60
 
 

2.3.6.1. Fish ..................................................................................................................................... 2-60
 
 

2.3.6.2. Wildlife ................................................................................................................................. 2-62
 
 

2.3.7. Special Status Species .............................................................................................................. 2-68
 
 

2.3.8. Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants .......................................................................................... 2-79
 
 

2.3.9. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management ...................................................................................2-85
 
 

2.3.9.1. Wildland Fire Management ................................................................................................. 2-85
 
 

2.3.9.2. Fuels and Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation (ES&BAR) ...............2-94
 
 

2.3.10. Wild Horses ............................................................................................................................ 2-103
 
 

2.3.11. Paleontological Resources..................................................................................................... 2-107
 
 

2.3.12. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................2-109
 
 

2.3.13. Visual Resources ................................................................................................................... 2-113
 

2.3.14. Non-Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Lands with Wilderness Characteristics .........................2-119
 
 

2.4. Resource Uses................................................................................................................................ 2-122
 
 

2.4.1. Livestock Grazing ..................................................................................................................... 2-122
 

2.4.2. Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 2-145
 
 

2.4.3. Transportation and Travel ........................................................................................................ 2-154
 
 

TOC-v August 2010 
Volume 1: Chapter 2 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Table of Contents 

2.4.4. Land Use Authorizations .......................................................................................................... 2-166
 

2.4.5. Land Tenure ............................................................................................................................. 2-177
 

2.4.6. Minerals .................................................................................................................................... 2-187
 

2.4.6.1. Leasable Minerals............................................................................................................. 2-187
 

2.4.6.2. Salable Minerals ............................................................................................................... 2-198
 
 

2.4.6.3. Locatable Minerals ............................................................................................................ 2-203
 

2.5. Special Designations .......................................................................................................................2-207
 
 

2.5.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) ..................................................................2-207
 
 

2.5.2. National Historic Trails (NHTs) .................................................................................................2-232
 
 

2.5.3. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs)............................................................................................... 2-234
 
 

2.5.4. Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) ............................................................................................. 2-237
 

2.6. Social and Economic Features ....................................................................................................... 2-241
 
 

2.6.1. Social and Economic Conditions ............................................................................................. 2-241
 
 

2.6.2. Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................ 2-241
 
 

2.6.3. Interpretation, Outreach, and Environmental Education ..........................................................2-242
 
 

2.7. Monitoring Implementation and Effectiveness of RMP Decisions ..................................................2-244
 
 

2.8. Summary Tables ............................................................................................................................. 2-245
 
 

2.8.1. Summary Comparison of Alternatives .....................................................................................2-245
 

2.8.2. Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences ........................................................2-278
 

2.9. Works Cited ..................................................................................................................................... 2-300
 

List of Tables 

Table 2- 1. Section Codes ..........................................................................................................................2-3
 

Table 2- 2. Alternative Codes..................................................................................................................... 2-3
 

Table 2- 3. Decision Type Codes ............................................................................................................... 2-4
 

Table 2- 4. Examples ................................................................................................................................. 2-4
 

Table 2- 5. Summary Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................. 2-246
 

Table 2- 6. Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences .................................................... 2-279
 

August 2010 TOC-vi 

 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Introduction 

How to Read This Chapter 

2.1. INTRODUCTION 

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

and uses managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Jarbidge Field Office (FO) area. 

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. These alternatives represent reasonable approaches to managing resources and 

uses consistent with law, regulation, and policy and provide a range of choices for achieving the purpose 

and need, meeting the multiple-use mandate of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA), and resolving the planning issues identified in Chapter 1: 

 The No Action Alternative continues to implement management direction contained in the 1987 

Jarbidge RMP and its amendments. 

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

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

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

intensive management of fuels and enhanced fire suppression capabilities. 

 Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) focuses on actively restoring the resiliency of ecosystem 

structure and function through restoration projects and managing uses. 

 Alternative V focuses on the restoration of habitats toward historic vegetation communities using lessintensive methods and more restrictions on uses than Alternative IV. 

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 Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Identification of an alternative as Preferred is not equivalent to 

identification of the Proposed Alternative in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The Proposed RMP will reflect 

changes or adjustments to the Preferred Alterantive based on comments received on the Draft RMP/EIS, 

new information, or changes in BLM policies or priorities and could include goals, objectives, allocations, 

and management actions described as portions of other analyzed alternatives. BLM has the discretion to 

select an alternative in its entirety or to combine aspects of the various alternatives presented in this Draft 

RMP/EIS to develop the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

2.1.1. How to Read This Chapter 

Chapter 2 presents alternative management direction for the planning area. The chapter begins with 

introductory materials regarding the development of the alternatives for the Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS, 

followed by a general narrative description of the alternatives. The chapter continues with a discussion of 

the alternatives considered but eliminated from further detailed analysis and the rationale for selecting the 

preferred alternative. 

The majority of the chapter contains sections detailing the goals, objectives, allocations, and 

management actions for each alternative. Topics are presented under five major categories: Tribal Rights 

and Interests, Resources, Resource Uses, Special Designations, and Social and Economic Features. 

Sections under these categories identify the specific topics being addressed (e.g., cultural resources, 

livestock grazing, National Historic Trails). Goals, objectives, and management actions are identified by 

section and organized under the following headings:
 

 Management Specific to the No Action Alternative – This heading contains goals, objectives, 

allocations, and management actions specific to the No Action Alternative. 

2-1 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Introduction Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

How to Read This Chapter 

	 Management Common to the No Action Alternative and All Action Alternatives – This heading 

contains goals, objectives, allocations, and management actions that apply to every alternative. 

	 Management Common to the Action Alternatives – This heading contains goals, objectives, 

allocations, and management actions that apply to all of the action alternatives, but not to the No 

Action Alternative. 

	 Management Specific to Alternative I – This heading contains goals, objectives, allocations, and 

management actions that apply to Alternative I and that are not common to all of the action 

alternatives. 

	 Management Specific to Alternative II – This heading contains goals, objectives, allocations, and 

management actions that apply to Alternative II and that are not common to all of the action 

alternatives. 

	 Management Specific to Alternative III – This heading contains goals, objectives, allocations, and 

management actions that apply to Alternative III and that are not common to all of the action 

alternatives. 

	 Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) – This heading contains goals, 

objectives, allocations, and management actions that apply to Alternative IV and that are not common 

to all of the action alternatives. Where differences between Alternatives IV-A and IV-B (the Preferred 

Alternative) occur, they are identified under this heading. 

	 Management Specific to Alternative V – This heading contains goals, objectives, allocations, and 

management actions that apply to Alternative V and that are not common to all of the action 

alternatives. 

Guidance for a specific resource, use, or designation is generally provided in the corresponding section; 

however, additional plan direction may also be included under another section. For this reason, any 

management direction contained within an alternative would apply to any future proposed action or 

activity, regardless of the organizational heading under which it appears in this document. For example, a 

special designation may contain restrictions related to livestock grazing within that designation; these 

restrictions may not necessarily be represented in the management direction for livestock grazing, but 

would still apply to any future livestock grazing actions. 

In order to understand the complete suite of all management objectives and actions for a specific action 

alternative, the reader is encouraged to read management guidance common to the No Action and all 

action alternatives, management guidance common to all action alternatives, and finally, management 

guidance specific to each alternative. 

The intent of any reference in the alternatives to regulations or policy is that BLM would follow regulations 

or policies in place at the time implementation actions are taken. 

Each goal, objective, allocation, and management action in Chapter 2 of the Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS is 

assigned a reference code to facilitate public comment by giving the public the ability to target their 

comments to specific items without repeating entire phrases or struggling with page and paragraph 

numbers. Codes are broken into four components for easy identification of the section, alternative, 

decision type, and order of appearance in the document. 

The first component of the reference code is used to identify the section. The codes and their 

corresponding sections are identified in Table 2- 1. The information is presented in the order in which it 

appears in this chapter. 

The second component of the reference code identifies the alternative under which the item appears. The 

codes and their corresponding alternatives are identified in Table 2- 2. This information is presented in 

the order in which it appears in Chapter 2. Headings for management common to the No Action 

Alternative and all action alternatives, management common to all action alternatives, and management 

specific to the action alternatives only appear in Chapter 2 when there are items in those categories. 

The third component of the code identifies the decision type. The codes and their corresponding decision 

type are identified in Table 2- 3. 

August 2010	 2-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Introduction 

How to Read This Chapter 

The fourth component of the code identifies the order in which the item appears within a section, 

alternative, and decision type. Sequential numbering is used for this section. 

Examples illustrating the coding system are provided in Table 2- 4. 

Table 2- 1. Section Codes 

CodeA Section 

TI Tribal Rights and Interests 

AAV Air and Atmospheric Values 

GE Geologic Features 

SR Soil Resources 

WR Water Resources 

UV Upland Vegetation 

RI Riparian Areas and Wetlands 

FI Fish 

WI Wildlife 

SS Special Status Species 

NW Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 

WFM Wildland Fire Management 

FE Fuels and Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation (ES&BAR) 

WH Wild Horses 

PR Paleontological Resources 

CR Cultural Resources 

VR Visual Resources 

WC Non-Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

LG Livestock Grazing 

REC Recreation 

TR Transportation and Travel 

LA Land Use Authorizations 

LT Land Tenure 

LE Leasable Minerals 

SA Salable Minerals 

LO Locatable Minerals 

ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

NHT National Historic Trails (NHTs) 

WSR Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

WSA Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

SE Social and Economic Features 

HM Hazardous Materials 

IOE Interpretation, Outreach, and Environmental Education A The codes are presented in the order in which they appear in this chapter. 

Table 2- 2. Alternative Codes 

Code Alternative 

NA Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

C Management Common to the No Action Alternative and All Action Alternatives 

CA Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

I Management Specific to Alternative I 

II Management Specific to Alternative II 

III Management Specific to Alternative III 

IV Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

V Management Specific to Alternative V 

2-3 August 2010 
 

 

 

Chapter 2: Introduction Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Alternative Development Process 

Table 2- 3. Decision Type Codes 

Code Decision Type 

G Goal 

O Objective 

A Allocation 

MA Management Action 

Table 2- 4. Examples 

Code Section Alternative Decision Type Order of Appearance 

UV-I-MA-6 Upland Vegetation Alternative I Management Action 6th Management Action 

for Upland Vegetation in 

Alternative I 

SS-IV-O-1 Special Status Species Alternative IV Objective 1st Objective for Special 

Status Species in 

Alternative IV 

LG-CA-MA-4 Livestock Grazing Management 

Common to 

All Action 

Alternatives 

Management Action 4th Management Action in 

Livestock Grazing that is 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives 

WSA-NA-G-1 Wilderness Study Areas No Action 

Alternative 

Goal 1st Goal for Wilderness 

Study Areas in the No 

Action Alternative 

Some management actions reference the use of toolboxes. Toolboxes are used to give an indication of 

what tools can be used to achieve objectives without being too prescriptive in the RMP on how objectives 

will be achieved. Also, some components of toolboxes vary by alternative to respond to comments that 

we allow or not allow the use of specific tools to achieve objectives. We will include a statement that 

describes the purpose of these toolboxes and that the specific tools to be used as well as conditions for 

using them would be determined and applied on a site-specific basis once an implementation action has 

been proposed. 

Chapter 2 ends with tables summarizing the general differences between each alternative and the 

impacts resulting from implementation of each alternative. The effects of the various management actions 

in each alternative are discussed in detail in the environmental consequences section presented in 

Chapter 4. 

Acreages used in the alternatives are approximate and serve for comparison and analytic purposes only. 

Data from Geographic Information System (GIS) have been used in developing acreage calculations and 

are rounded to the nearest 1,000 acres, unless finer distinction is needed for comparison purposes. 

Readers should not infer that they reflect exact measurements or precise calculations. 

2.1.2. Alternative Development Process

BLM complied with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requirements in developing 

alternatives for this Draft RMP/EIS, including seeking public input and analyzing an adequate range of 

reasonable alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. Alternative formulation took into 

consideration existing decisions in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP and its amendments, the 2001 Jarbidge RMP 

evaluation, the Stipulated Settlement Agreement (SSA; Appendix A) in the case of Western Watershed 

Project v. Bennett et al. (Case No. CV-04-181-S-BLW) (D. Idaho), and issues and concerns developed 

internally and solicited from the public during scoping. 

Some decisions from the 1987 Jarbidge RMP were acceptable and reasonable. In these instances, there 

was limited need to develop alternative management prescriptions, and the decision was carried forward 

into one or more of the action alternatives. In most cases, in order to meet the planning criteria; to 

address issues and comments from tribes, cooperating agencies, and the public; or to provide a 

reasonable range of alternatives, the alternatives included management options for the planning area that 

August 2010 2-4 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Introduction 

Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

would modify or amend decisions made in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP. On occasion, management 

prescriptions are the same across all alternatives or reflect only a decision to implement or not implement 

an action. Each action alternative represents a complete and reasonable interdisciplinary land use plan to 

achieve the purpose and need and guide future management of the public land resources and uses in the 

planning area. 

Public input received during the scoping process was considered to ensure that all issues and concerns 

would be addressed, as appropriate, in developing the alternatives. The scoping process and its results, 

as well as other opportunities for public involvement, are summarized in Chapters 1 and 5, respectively. 

The development of alternatives began with compiling the No Action Alternative. To begin developing 

action alternatives, the Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) and cooperating agency representatives met in a 

series of workshops to share their respective knowledge and expertise and to collaborate to identify goals 

and objectives for the resources and uses in the planning area. Common themes emerged from the lists 

of goals and objectives developed; these themes formed the basis of eight conceptual alternatives. In a 

second series of workshops, the ID Team and cooperating agency representatives expanded on the 

goals and objectives to develop more detailed management direction for each conceptual alternative. 

Following this process, BLM determined three of the conceptual alternatives could be dropped as standalone alternatives because they either lacked focus, did not address the planning issues or purpose and 

need, or were too similar to other conceptual alternatives; the reasonable components of these 

alternatives were incorporated into at least one of the other five conceptual alternatives. 

The remaining five alternatives were finalized and reviewed as preliminary alternatives by the tribes, 

cooperating agencies, counties, the Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council (RAC), the parties to 

the SSA, and the public through workshops hosted by the RAC. The preliminary alternatives were then 

refined based on the feedback received as well as changes in the planning area resulting from the 

Murphy Complex Fires, which occurred during the review process and burned 31% of BLM-managed 

lands in the planning area. As a result of the review process, the similarity between two alternatives 

became apparent, so the components of each were merged into one alternative; this alternative was later 

split into two sub-alternatives differing only in ACEC acreage. A new alternative was added to respond to 

the array of concerns expressed following the Murphy Complex Fires. The focus and content of the 

remaining alternatives were refined based on the comments received. These comments included four 

additional alternatives submitted by the public. Many components of these four alternatives were already 

included in a preliminary alternative; some components fell beyond the range BLM considered 

reasonable. As a result, these alternatives were not analyzed as stand-alone alternatives, and reasonable 

components were included in at least one alternative. These four alternatives are described in more detail 

in the section Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis. 

This alternative development process resulted in five action alternatives, one with two variations, as well 

as the No Action Alternative. 

2.1.3. Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

The major features of the No Action Alternative and the five action alternatives are summarized below. 

These alternative summaries focus on how the alternatives address the planning issues described in 

Chapter 1. 

No Action Alternative 

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. 

­

2-5 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Introduction Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

Fuels and Fire 

	 Fuels treatments would include restoration, fuel breaks, and noxious weed treatments within and 

outside the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). 

	 Prescribed fires may be reduced, postponed, or cancelled in areas where they, in combination with 

recent burns, would cause significant cumulative impacts to wildlife or watershed conditions. 

	 The entire planning area would remain a full suppression area (1,374,000 acres). 

Habitat 

	 A limited number of upland vegetation treatments would focus on maintaining or improving wildlife 

habitat, especially habitat for big game, greater sage-grouse (sage-grouse), and upland game birds. 

	 Riparian areas would be managed to improve riparian areas and fish habitat in WSAs, the Inside 

Desert, and the Jarbidge Foothills. 

	 Strategies to address noxious weeds and invasive species would focus on control. 

Livestock Grazing 

	 Most upland vegetation treatments would focus on maintaining or improving vegetation for livestock 

grazing. 

	 The majority of the planning area would be available for livestock grazing. Salmon Falls Creek 

Canyon and areas not contained within grazing allotments would not be available for livestock grazing 

(51,000 acres). 

	 Between 160,000 and 260,000 animal unit months (AUMs) would be allocated for livestock use. 

	 Livestock grazing systems and practices that recognize the physiological requirements of forbs and 

shrubs and that meet fisheries, riparian, and water quality needs would be designed and established. 

Recreation 

	 Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers, Hagerman-Owsley Bridge, Jarbidge Forks, Oregon Trail, and Salmon Falls 

Creek and Canyon would be managed as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs; 77,000 

acres total). 

	 The majority of the planning area would remain open to cross-country motorized vehicle use. 

Transportation and travel within the Sand Point Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), 

California bighorn sheep (bighorn sheep) habitat, and portions of Devil Creek would be limited to 

designated routes (216,000 acres), while a seasonal limitation on travel within big game winter range 

could be invoked if the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) determines harassment is 

occurring. Canyons within WSAs and some cultural resource sites would be closed to motorized 

vehicle use (25,000 acres). The remaining portions of the WSAs would be limited to inventoried ways 

(70,000 acres). 

Energy Development 

	 Right-of-way (ROW) avoidance/restricted areas would include Sand Point ACEC, portions of 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC, Dove Springs, the Oregon Trail, recommended suitable wilderness areas, 

the suitable Wild and Scenic River (WSR) corridors, Salmon Falls Creek Canyon, riparian areas, 

paleontological sites, and cultural resource complexes (110,000 acres). 

	 No ROW exclusion areas would be identified. 

	 Wind farms would be allowed throughout the planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW 

avoidance areas. 

ACECs 

	 The Bruneau-Jarbidge, Salmon Falls Creek, and Sand Point areas would be managed as ACECs 

(89,000 acres total). 

August 2010	 2-6 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Introduction 

Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

Alternative I 

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 SRMAs for 

motorized recreation, hunting and fishing, hiking, and water-based recreation. Livestock grazing would be 

maintained near current forage allocation 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. 

Fuels and Fire 

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

in the northern portion of the planning area. 

 Fuels treatments outside WUI would include restoration, fuel breaks, and noxious weed treatments. 

- Restoration would focus on moving plant communities toward FRCC 1. 

- Outside SRMAs, fuel breaks would follow disturbance corridors; fuel breaks for SRMAs could 

be used to protect surrounding areas, facilities, and high-use areas. 

- Noxious weed treatments would focus on special designations, access points, riparian areas, 

special status species habitat, mule deer winter range, roadsides, and native plant 

communities. 

	 The toolbox for reducing fuels, treating noxious weeds and invasive plants, or otherwise restoring or 

treating upland vegetation communities would include: chemical, mechanical, and biological 

treatments; seeding and planting; and targeted grazing. Prescribed fire would not be allowed. 

	 Temporary fences could be considered when there are at least 2,000 unburned acres in a pasture; 

they would be removed once Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation (ES&BAR) 

objectives have been met. 

	 Critical Suppression Areas would include WUI; the Bruneau-Jarbidge, Lower Bruneau Canyon, 

Middle Snake, and Salmon Falls Creek ACECs; and key sage-grouse habitat (481,000 acres). 

Habitat 

	 Upland vegetation treatments would include actively restoring native and non-native perennial 

communities in big game and sage-grouse habitat, as well as converting annual communities. 

	 Riparian areas would be managed to maintain proper functioning condition (PFC) on 83 miles of 

streams, achieve PFC on an additional 60 miles of streams, and be moving toward PFC on the 

remaining streams; within the priorities identified in the Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy 

(ARMS; Appendix D), streams with habitat for suitable for game fish would have priority for 

restoration. 

	 Strategies to address noxious weeds and invasive species would include measures for both 

prevention and control. 

Livestock Grazing 

	 A limited number of treatments to actively maintain non-native perennial communities for livestock 

would be implemented. 

	 The majority of the planning area would be available for livestock grazing. The following areas would 

not be available for livestock grazing: canyons associated with the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers and 

Salmon Falls Creek; portions of the Middle Snake ACEC; reference areas; Wildlife Tracts; areas open 

to cross-country motorized vehicle use; and areas not contained within grazing allotments (84,000 

acres). 

2-7 August 2010 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Introduction Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

	 25% to 35% of native perennial grass production, 30% to 40% of non-native perennial grass 

production, 20% to 30% of annual grass production, and 7% to 10% of shrub and forb production 

would be allocated for livestock use. 

	 In native plant communities, except the Sandberg/non-native areas, livestock grazing would be 

managed to maintain and improve native plant species diversity and abundance. 

	 In non-native plant communities, including Sandberg/non-native areas, livestock grazing would be 

managed to maintain and improve perennial plant species diversity and abundance, taking into 

account big game habitat needs. 

Recreation 

	 The Deadman/Yahoo, Balanced Rock, Little Pilgrim, Bruneau-Jarbidge, Jarbidge Forks, 

Canyonlands, Jarbidge Foothills, and Salmon Falls Reservoir SRMAs would be designated (342,000 

acres total). 

	 Transportation and travel within the majority of the planning area would be limited to designated 

routes. Areas open to cross-country motorized vehicle use would include designated play areas in the 

Deadman/Yahoo SRMA (3,620 acres). Salmon Falls Creek ACEC, the portions of the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Canyons within WSAs, and non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics 

would be closed to motorized vehicle use (57,000 acres). The remaining portions of the WSAs would 

be limited to designated ways (72,000 acres). 

Energy Development 

	 ROW avoidance areas would include United States Air Force (USAF) Military Operations Areas 

(MOAs); the Oregon National Historic Trail (NHT) protective corridor; eligible, suitable, and 

designated WSR corridors; non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics; and the 

Bruneau-Jarbidge and Salmon Falls Creek ACECs (896,000 acres). 

	 ROW exclusion areas would include the Sand Point ACEC and WSAs (95,000 acres). 

	 Wind farms would be allowed in areas that have already been converted from native communities to 

annual, non-native perennial, or non-native understory communities, consistent with stipulations for 

ROW avoidance areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. 

ACECs 

	 The Sand Point, Middle Snake, Bruneau-Jarbidge, Salmon Falls Creek, and Lower Bruneau Canyon 

ACECs would be designated (97,000 acres total). 

Alternative II 

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 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. 

Fuels and Fire 

	 Fuels treatments within 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 outside WUI would include restoration, fuel breaks, landscape-scale fuels reduction, 

and noxious weed treatments. 

August 2010	 2-8 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Introduction 

Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

- Restoration would focus on moving native plant communities toward FRCC 1. 

- Fuel breaks would focus on protecting commercial facilities; fuel breaks would also be placed 

in non-native communities to protect native communities. 

- Landscape-scale fuels reduction would occur primarily through increased allocation of 

vegetation for permitted livestock grazing and through increased livestock grazing utilization. 

- Noxious weed treatments would focus on riparian areas, special status species habitat, and 

native plant communities. 

	 The toolbox for reducing fuels, treating noxious weeds and invasive plants, or otherwise restoring or 

treating upland vegetation communities would include: chemical, mechanical, and biological 

treatments; seeding and planting; targeted grazing; and prescribed fire. Prescribed fire would not be 

allowed in native grassland or native shrubland communities. 

	 Temporary fences could be considered on a case-by-case basis; they could become permanent if 

they enhance management of the burned area. 

	 Critical Suppression Areas would only include WUI (172,000 acres). 

Habitat 

	 A limited amount of restoration in native plant communities would be implemented, focusing on 

special status species habitat. 

	 Riparian areas would be managed to maintain 85 miles at PFC and be moving toward PFC on the 

remaining streams; within the priorities identified within the ARMS (Appendix D), fish-bearing streams 

would have priority for restoration. 

	 Strategies to address noxious weeds and invasive species include measures for both prevention and 

control. 

Livestock Grazing 

	 Upland vegetation treatments would focus on actively maintaining non-native perennial and nonnative understory communities for livestock and converting annual communities to non-native 

perennial. 

	 The majority of the planning area would be available for livestock grazing. The following areas would 

not be available for livestock grazing: canyons associated with the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers and 

Salmon Falls Creek; reference areas; Wildlife Tracts; and areas not contained within grazing 

allotments (59,000 acres). 

	 40% to 50% of native perennial grass production, 50% to 60% of non-native perennial grass 

production, 70% to 80% of annual grass production, and 12% to 15% of shrub and forb production 

would be allocated for livestock use. 

	 In native plant communities, except the Sandberg/non-native areas, livestock grazing would be 

managed to maintain and improve native plant species diversity and abundance. 

	 In non-native plant communities, livestock grazing would be managed to sustain the forage base and 

allow for other commercial uses. 

Recreation 

	 The Little Pilgrim, Bruneau-Jarbidge, Jarbidge Forks, and Salmon Falls Reservoir SRMAs would be 

designated (21,000 acres total). 

	 Transportation and travel in the majority of the planning area would be limited to designated routes. 

No areas would be open to cross-country motorized vehicle use. Portions of the Bruneau and 

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

remaining portions of the WSAs would be limited to inventoried ways (73,000 acres). 

Energy Development 

	 ROW avoidance areas would include USAF MOAs; the Oregon NHT protective corridor; and eligible, 

suitable, and designated WSR corridors (878,000 acres). 

2-9 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Introduction Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

 ROW exclusion areas would include WSAs (94,000 acres). 

 Wind farms would be allowed throughout the planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW 

avoidance areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. 

ACECs 

	 No ACECs would be designated. 

Alternative III 

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; 

this management would include 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; extreme 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. 

Fuels and Fire 

 Fuels treatments within 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. 

 Fuels treatments outside WUI would include restoration, fuel breaks, landscape-scale fuels reduction, 

and noxious weed treatments. 

- Restoration would focus on moving native plant communities toward FRCC 1. 

- Fuel breaks would focus on strategic locations to disrupt the continuity of fuels and to protect 

important resources and structures. 

- Landscape-scale fuels reduction would occur primarily in annual and non-native perennial 

communities through increased allocation of vegetation for permitted livestock grazing and 

through increased livestock grazing utilization. 

- Noxious weed treatments would focus on special designations, fuel breaks, areas with high 

wildland fire occurrence, areas around historic structures, roadsides, and special status 

species habitat. 

	 The toolbox for reducing fuels, treating noxious weeds and invasive plants, or otherwise restoring or 

treating upland vegetation communities would include: chemical, mechanical, and biological 

treatments; seeding and planting; targeted grazing; and prescribed fire. 

 Temporary fences could be considered on a case-by-case basis; they would be removed once 

ES&BAR objectives have been met. 

 Critical Suppression Areas would include WUI; the Bruneau-Jarbidge and Salmon Falls Creek 

ACECs; and key sage-grouse habitat (469,000 acres). 

Habitat 

	 Upland vegetation treatments would focus on treatments that would reduce fuels, convert annual 

communities to perennial, and restore native grassland communities to native shrubland, focusing on 

special status species habitat. 

	 Riparian areas would be managed to maintain 85 miles of streams at PFC, achieve PFC on an 

additional 98 miles of streams, and be moving toward PFC on the remaining streams; within the 

priorities identified within the ARMS (Appendix D), streams with the potential to serve as fire breaks 

would have priority for restoration. 

August 2010	 2-10 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Introduction 

Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

	 Strategies to address noxious weeds and invasive species include measures for both prevention and 

control. 

Livestock Grazing 

	 Non-native perennial communities would not be actively maintained for livestock. 

	 The majority of the planning area would be available for livestock grazing. The following areas would 

not be available for livestock grazing: canyons associated with the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers and 

Salmon Falls Creek, reference areas, Wildlife Tracts, and areas not contained within grazing 

allotments (61,000 acres). 

	 35% to 45% of native perennial grass production, 40% to 50% of non-native perennial grass 

production, 40% to 50% of annual grass production, and 11% to 14% of shrub and forb production 

would be allocated for livestock use. 

	 In native plant communities, including the Sandberg/non-native areas, livestock grazing would be 

managed to maintain and improve native plant species diversity and abundance. 

	 In non-native plant communities, livestock grazing would be managed to reduce fuels. 

Recreation 

	 The Deadman/Yahoo, Balanced Rock, Little Pilgrim, Bruneau-Jarbidge, Jarbidge Forks, and Salmon 

Falls Reservoir SRMAs would be designated (56,000 acres total). 

	 Transportation and travel in the majority of the planning area would be limited to designated routes. 

Areas open to cross-country motorized vehicle use would include designated play areas in the 

Deadman/Yahoo SRMA (3,570 acres). Salmon Falls Creek ACEC and portions of the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Canyons within WSAs would be closed to motorized vehicle use (24,000 acres). The 

remaining portions of the WSAs would be limited to inventoried ways (72,000 acres). 

Energy Development 

	 ROW avoidance areas would include USAF MOAs; the Oregon NHT protective corridor; eligible, 

suitable, and designated WSR corridors; and the Bruneau-Jarbidge and Salmon Falls Creek ACECs 

(880,000 acres). 

	 ROW exclusion areas would include the Sand Point ACEC and WSAs (95,000 acres). 

	 Wind farms would be allowed in areas that have already been converted from native communities to 

annual, non-native perennial, or non-native understory communities, consistent with stipulations for 

ROW avoidance areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. 

ACECs 

	 The Sand Point, Bruneau-Jarbidge, and Salmon Falls Creek ACECs would be designated (61,000 

acres total). 

Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative)

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 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 

2-11 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Introduction Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

sections in which ACEC management is a factor. When differences are specified between Alternatives IVA and IV-B, Alternative IV-B is the Preferred Alternative. 

Fuels and Fire 

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

in the northern portion of the planning area. 

 Fuels treatments outside WUI would include restoration, fuel breaks, and noxious weed treatments. 

- Restoration would focus on moving plant communities toward FRCC 1. 

- Fuel breaks would follow disturbance corridors. 

- Noxious weed treatments would focus on special designations, riparian areas, special status 

species habitat, and native plant communities. 

	 The toolbox for reducing fuels, treating noxious weeds and invasive plants, or otherwise restoring or 

treating upland vegetation communities would include: chemical, mechanical, and biological 

treatments; seeding and planting; targeted grazing; and prescribed fire. 

	 Temporary fences could be considered when there are at least 2,000 unburned acres in a pasture; 

they would be removed once ES&BAR objectives have been met. 

	 Critical Suppression Areas would include WUI; the Bruneau-Jarbidge, Inside Desert, Jarbidge 

Foothills, and Lower Bruneau Canyon ACECs; and key sage-grouse habitat (594,000 acres in 

Alternative IV-A; 555,000 acres in Alternative IV-B). 

Habitat 

	 Upland vegetation treatments would focus on restoring non-native perennial and native grassland 

communities to native shrubland and converting annual communities, focusing on special status 

species, mule deer, and pronghorn habitat. 

	 Riparian areas would be managed to maintain 85 miles of streams at PFC, achieve PFC on an 

additional 98 miles of streams, and be moving toward PFC on the remaining streams; within the 

priorities identified within the ARMS (Appendix D), streams containing special status species habitat 

would have priority for restoration. 

	 Strategies to address noxious weeds and invasive species include measures for both prevention and 

control. 

Livestock Grazing 

	 Non-native perennial communities would not be actively maintained for livestock. 

	 The majority of the planning area would be available for livestock grazing. The following areas would 

not be available for livestock grazing: the Bruneau Canyon Allotment, canyons or riparian corridors 

associated with the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers, and Deer (Nevada; NV), Dave, Rocky Canyon and 

Salmon Falls Creeks; reference areas; Wildlife Tracts; the Inside Desert ACEC; and areas not 

contained within grazing allotments (145,000 acres in Alternative IV-A; 113,000 acres in Alternative 

IV-B). 

	 15% to 25% of native perennial grass production and 20% to 30% of non-native perennial grass 

production would be allocated for livestock use. 

	 In native plant communities, including the Sandberg/non-native areas, livestock grazing would be 

managed to maintain and improve native plant species diversity and abundance. 

	 In non-native plant communities, livestock grazing would be managed to achieve restoration 

objectives. 

Recreation 

	 The Deadman/Yahoo, Bruneau-Jarbidge, Jarbidge Forks, Canyonlands, and Salmon Falls Reservoir 

SRMAs would be designated (205,000 acres total). 

	 Transportation and travel in the majority of the planning area would be limited to designated routes. 

Areas open to cross-country motorized vehicle use would include designated play areas in the 

August 2010	 2-12 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Introduction 

Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

Deadman/Yahoo SRMA (3,570 acres). Portions of the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons within WSAs 

and non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics would be closed to motorized 

vehicle use (74,000 acres). The remaining portions of the WSAs would be limited to inventoried ways 

(73,000 acres). 

Energy Development 

	 ROW avoidance areas would include USAF MOAs; the Oregon NHT protective corridor; eligible, 

suitable, and designated WSR corridors; and the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC (896,000 acres). 

	 ROW exclusion areas would include the Sand Point ACEC, WSAs, and non-WSA lands managed for 

their wilderness characteristics (148,000 acres). 

	 Wind farms would be allowed in areas that have already been converted from native communities to 

annual, non-native perennial, or non-native understory communities, consistent with stipulations for 

ROW avoidance areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. 

ACECs 

	 The Sand Point, Bruneau-Jarbidge, Inside Desert, Lower Bruneau Canyon, and Jarbidge Foothills 

ACECs would be designated (335,000 acres total in Alternative IV-A; 232,000 acres total in 

Alternative IV-B). 

Alternative V 

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 sage-grouse 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. 

Fuels and Fire 

	 Fuels treatments within WUI would focus on areas with high Relative Risk Ratings in the northern 

portion of the planning area. 

 Fuels treatments outside WUI would include restoration, fuel breaks, and noxious weed treatments. 

- Restoration would focus on moving plant communities toward FRCC 1. 

- Fuel breaks would follow designated roads and designated primitive roads. 

- Noxious weed treatments would focus on special designations, riparian areas, special status 

species habitat, and native plant communities. 

	 The toolbox for reducing fuels, treating noxious weeds and invasive plants, or otherwise restoring or 

treating upland vegetation communities would include: chemical, mechanical, and biological 

treatments; seeding and planting; removal of grazing; and prescribed fire. Chemical treatments could 

only be used after all other methods have been exhausted. Targeted grazing would not be allowed. 

 Temporary fences would not be allowed. 

 Critical Suppression Areas would include WUI; the Lower Bruneau Canyon, Middle Snake, and 

Sagebrush Sea ACECs; and key sage-grouse habitat (1,067,000 acres). 

Habitat 

	 Upland vegetation treatments would focus on restoring annual communities to native shrubland and 

restoring a shrub component to non-native perennial and native grassland communities, focusing on 

special status species habitat. 

	 Riparian areas would be managed to maintain PFC on 85 miles of streams, achieve PFC on an 

additional 98 miles of streams, and be moving toward PFC on the remaining streams; within the 

2-13 August 2010 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Introduction Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis 

priorities identified within the ARMS (Appendix D), streams containing special status species habitat 

would have priority for restoration. 

	 Strategies to address noxious weeds and invasive species include measures for both prevention and 

control. 

Livestock Grazing 

	 Vegetation treatments would not include active maintenance of non-native perennial communities for 

livestock. 

	 The majority of the planning area would be available for livestock grazing. The following areas would 

not be available for livestock grazing: the Bruneau Canyon Allotment; canyons or riparian corridors 

associated with the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers, and Upper Cedar, Deer (Idaho; ID), Deer (NV), 

Clover (Robeson crossing to mouth), Rocky Canyon, Flat, Shack, China, Dave, and Salmon Falls 

Creeks; the Middle Snake, Sand Point, and Lower Bruneau Canyon ACECs; reference areas; the 

Browns Bench/China Mountain area; Wildlife Tracts; and areas not contained within grazing 

allotments (309,000 acres). 

	 10% to 20% of native and non-native perennial grass production would be allocated to livestock. 

	 In native plant communities, including the Sandberg/non-native areas, livestock grazing would be 

managed to maintain and improve native plant species diversity and abundance. 

	 In non-native plant communities, livestock grazing would be managed to maintain and improve shrub 

cover for sage-grouse. 

Recreation 

	 The Yahoo, Bruneau-Jarbidge, and Jarbidge Forks SRMAs would be designated (19,000 acres total). 

	 Transportation and travel in the majority of the planning area would be limited to designated routes. 

Areas open to cross-country motorized vehicle use would include designated play areas in the Yahoo 

SRMA (700 acres). WSAs and non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics would be 

closed to motorized vehicle use (147,000 acres). 

Energy Development 

	 ROW avoidance areas would include USAF MOAs; the Oregon NHT protective corridor; eligible, 

suitable, and designated WSR corridors; and the Sagebrush Sea ACEC (1,229,000 acres). 

	 ROW exclusion areas would include the Sand Point ACEC, WSAs, and non-WSA lands managed for 

their wilderness characteristics (148,000 acres). 

	 Wind farms would be allowed in areas that have already been converted from native communities to 

annual, non-native perennial, or non-native understory communities, consistent with stipulations for 

ROW avoidance areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. 

ACECs 

	 The Sand Point, Middle Snake, Lower Bruneau Canyon, and Sagebrush Sea ACECs would be 

designated (968,000 acres total). 

2.1.4. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further 

Detailed Analysis

The following alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it did not meet the purpose and 

need for this RMP. 

No Grazing Alternative 

An alternative that proposes to close the entire planning area to livestock grazing would not meet the 

purpose and need of this Draft RMP/EIS. NEPA requires that agencies study, develop, and describe 

August 2010	 2-14 
 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Introduction 

 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis 

appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal that involves unresolved 

conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. No issue or conflict has been identified 

during this land use planning effort that requires the complete elimination of grazing within the planning 

area for its resolution. Resource conditions do not warrant planning area-wide prohibition of any particular 

use, including livestock grazing; therefore, an alternative eliminating this use where resource conditions 

do not justify such measures is not reasonable. Closures and adjustments to livestock use have been 

incorporated into the alternatives on an allotment or area basis, where appropriate, in order to address 

issues identified in the RMP. Because the BLM has considerable discretion through its grazing 

regulations to determine and adjust stocking levels, seasons of use, and grazing management activities 

and to allocate forage to uses of the public lands in RMPs, the analysis of an alternative to entirely 

eliminate grazing is not needed. 

Alternatives Submitted during Public Scoping 

The ID Team developed preliminary alternatives in late 2006 and early 2007. In April 2007, these 

alternatives were presented to the public in a series of public workshops. Four alternatives were 

submitted to BLM following these workshops. After careful review, the ID Team determined many 

components of these four alternatives were already included in a preliminary alternative and were carried 

forward into the alternatives analyzed in detail; the ID Team incorporated other concepts from the 

submitted alternatives into the analyzed alternatives as appropriate, preventing any submitted alternative 

from being entirely eliminated. The ID Team eliminated these alternatives from further detailed analysis 

as stand-alone alternatives because they did not meet the purpose and need; did not adequately address 

the planning issues; contained internal inconsistencies; were inconsistent with the planning criteria; or 

were inconsistent with BLM’s multiple use mandate. 

The submitted alternatives are summarized below; the summary indicates the alternatives in which 

concepts from each submitted alternative were analyzed. The alternatives were titled by the submitters 

and are presented in alphabetical order. 

Community and Environmental Stabilization and Improvement Alternative 

The following list briefly summarizes how the Community and Environmental Stabilization and 

Improvement Alternative addressed the planning issues: 

 Fuels and Fire – Fuels treatments would protect public safety, life, and property, including WUI and 

valued resources, and would aggressively limit the spread, size, and intensity of wildland fire. 

Livestock grazing management would be used to help reduce fine fuels and the risk of landscapescale fires. Following wildland fires, soils would be stabilized, annual-dominated vegetation 

communities would be replaced with self-sustaining perennial vegetation, and burned areas would be 

rehabilitated or converted to establish a mosaic of vegetation types and seral stages. 

	 Habitat – Existing wildlife habitat, including crucial winter big game habitat and upland game nesting 

and cover habitat, would be maintained or improved. Early seral vegetation communities would be 

converted to mid-seral or desired plant communities to improve perennial watershed cover. Livestock 

management would be used to achieve a mixture in the number of acres of native vegetation 

communities in mid-seral, late-seral, or potential natural community. Native cultivar and non-native 

perennial seedings would be maintained. 

	 Livestock Grazing – Livestock grazing would be managed to create a mosaic of patterns and levels 

of utilization at different periods of the year. Forage would be allocated and authorized for use by 

livestock through monitoring of actual use and utilization over time, by allocating 0% of the native 

shrub forage base, 0% of the native forb forage base, 50% of the native grass forage base, and 60% 

of non-native forage base 

	 Recreation - Outdoor recreation opportunities would be provided with an emphasis towards 

destination and community recreation activities. Salmon Falls Creek Canyon and the Jarbidge 

Canyon would be managed as SRMAs. 

 Energy Development – Renewable energy development was not addressed. 

 ACECs - The Sand Point and Bruneau-Jarbidge ACECs (boundary complying with the Owyhee 

Initiative) would be designated. 

2-15 August 2010 
                                                           

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

Chapter 2: Introduction Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis 

Components of the Community and Environmental Stabilization and Improvement Alternative were 

incorporated into Alternative II. 

Friends of the Jarbidge Alternative 

The following list briefly summarizes how the Friends of the Jarbidge Alternative addressed the planning 

issues: 

	 Fuels and Fire – Fuels treatments would include targeted livestock grazing and greenstrips. 

	 Habitat – Big game winter range would be expanded. Increasing water developments should be used 

to expand wildlife habitat. 

	 Livestock Grazing – Seedings would be maintained for livestock forage. Grazing permits would 

allocate 50% of native grasses and 60% of non-native forage. Temporary Non-Renewable 

Authorizations (TNR) would be allowed were excess forage is available. 

	 Recreation – SRMAs would include the Oregon Trail, Balanced Rock, Little Pilgrim, reduced 

Bruneau-Jarbidge, and Salmon Falls Reservoir. 

	 Energy Development – Renewable energy development, transportation routes, utility corridors, 

transmission lines, communication sites, and other uses would be allowed. Wind development would 

be allowed where the wind is strong enough to generate power. Facilities would maintain minimum 

distances from special status species habitat and should avoid special status species and other fish 

and wildlife during critical time periods. Wind development would be restricted where adverse impacts 

to wildlife and cultural resources cannot be mitigated. 

	 ACECs – The Sand Point, Middle Snake, Purple Sage,1 and Bruneau-Jarbidge (reduced boundary) 

ACECs would be designated. 

Components of the Friends of the Jarbidge Alternative were incorporated into Alternatives I, II, and III. 

Habitat Restoration Alternative 

The following list briefly summarizes how the Habitat Restoration Alternative addressed the planning 

issues: 

	 Fuels and Fire – Wildland fire management would limit 90% of fires to less than 50 acres and all 

remaining fires to less than 1,000 acres. Areas would be rehabilitated and stabilized to help promote 

natural recovery, establish pre-fire or historic vegetation and stabilize soils. 

	 Habitat – The primary management focus would be to promote diverse, structured, resilient, and 

connected habitats for fish and wildlife species. Native plant communities would be restored to 

eliminate fragmentation. 

	 Livestock Grazing – Livestock grazing would be excluded in most of the southern two-thirds of the 

planning area to increase native species plant diversity and abundance. In allotments with livestock 

grazing, 25% of available forage would be allocated for livestock, and utilization would be between 

10% to 15%. Extended rest would be provided to restore vigor and production of native plant species. 

	 Recreation – Recreation would be managed to minimize disturbance to wildlife and the impact to 

watershed and special status species, limit the introduction and spread of invasive species, and 

prevent wildland fire. Undeveloped and non-motorized recreation would be emphasized. 

	 Energy Development – Renewable energy development, transportation routes, utility corridors, 

transmission lines, and communication sites would be allowed where other goals are not 

compromised; these uses would not be allowed in native plant communities or areas targeted for 

restoration to native plant communities. 

	 ACECs – The Sand Point, Bruneau-Jarbidge, Jarbidge Forks, Inside Desert, Inside Lakes2

, Purple 

Sage, Jarbidge Foothills, Salmon Falls Creek, Middle Snake, and Sagebrush Sea ACECs would be 

designated. 

Components of the Habitat Restoration Alternative were incorporated into Alternatives IV and V. 

1 This is the same area referred to as the Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC.
 2 This area is included within the expanded boundary of the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC. 

August 2010	 2-16 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Introduction

 Rationale for Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

Maximize Commodity Use Alternative 

The following list briefly summarizes how the Maximize Commodity Use Alternative addressed the 

planning issues: 

	 Fuels and Fire – Public safety, life, and property would be protected from wildland fires. Fuels 

treatments would include greenstrips and would protect WUI and aggressively limit the spread, size, 

and intensity of wildland fire. 

	 Habitat – A mosaic of native vegetation communities would be maintained in mid-seral, late-seral, or 

potential natural community ecological condition. Access and use in wildlife breeding and wintering 

areas would be managed to benefit commodity uses. 

	 Livestock Grazing – Livestock grazing would be managed to optimize the utilization of perennial and 

annual forage species. 50% of the native shrub forage base, 50% of the native forb forage base, 60% 

of the native grass forage base, 70% of non-native perennial forage base, and 90% of non-native 

annual forage base would be allocated for use by livestock. 

	 Recreation – Outdoor recreation opportunities that provide revenue enhancement to communities 

within the planning area would be provided. SRMAs would include the Jarbidge River North Forks 

and Jarbidge Forks. 

	 Energy Development – Renewable energy development, transportation routes, utility corridors, 

transmission lines, and communication sites would be allowed. Wind development would be allowed 

anywhere not identified for ROW avoidance or exclusion. 

	 ACECs – No new ACECs would be designated, and ACEC designation would be removed from 

existing ACECs. 

Components of the Maximize Commodity Use Alternative were incorporated into Alternative II. 

2.1.5. Rationale for the Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative IV is selected at the Preferred Alternative. When differences are specified between subalternatives IV-A and IV-B, Alternative IV-B is the Preferred Alternative. 

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. Once the alternatives were developed, they 

were analyzed to predict and estimate their impacts on the environment (see Chapter 4). The impact 

analysis provides a relative comparison of estimated outcomes and effects between the alternatives to 

better inform the decision-making process – it is not a reflection of an absolute expected outcome. 

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-B 

as the Preferred Alternative from the suite of alternatives analyzed. 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 

 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 is not equivalent to identification of the Proposed Alternative in the Proposed 

RMP/ Final EIS. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS will reflect changes or adjustments to the Preferred 

Alternative based on comments received on the Draft RMP/EIS, new information, or changes in BLM 

policies or priorities and could include goals, objectives, allocations, and management actions described 

as portions of other analyzed alternatives. BLM has the discretion to select an alternative in its entirety or 

to combine aspects of the various alternatives presented in this Draft RMP/EIS to develop the Proposed 

RMP and Final EIS. 

2-17 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2.2.TRIBAL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

No objective stated.	 

Management Actions 

TI-NA-MA- 1. Coordinate review of detailed management plans and 

individual projects prepared in conjunction with the RMP to ensure 

consistency with officially adopted and approved plans, policies, and 

programs of Native American tribes, Federal agencies, and State 

and local governments. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal and Objective 

TI-CA-G- 1. Manage public lands to protect resources and values associated with Native American treaty 

rights. 

TI-CA-G- 2. Manage natural and cultural resources of importance to the tribes in a manner that respects 

tribal beliefs, traditions, and values. 

Objective 

See Goal and Objective section.	 

Management Actions 

TI-CA-MA- 1. Consult with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in accordance with BLM policy and other 

authorities. Consultation would be an ongoing process between BLM 

and the tribes, within the context of general management of public 

lands and programs, as well as specific proposals that may affect 

natural and cultural resources of importance to the tribes. 

TI-CA-MA- 2. Consider the effects of decisions on vegetation, fish, 

wildlife, mineral, and water resources of importance to the tribes, as 

identified through consultation, and seek ways to lessen or avoid 

impacts on these where practical. This action would also apply to 

other Federal entities whose decisions affect BLM-managed lands 

within the planning area. 

TI-CA-MA- 3. Strive to protect the physical condition of sacred sites 

and traditional cultural properties and to preserve tribal access to 

such sites. 

TI-CA-MA- 4. Work collaboratively with the tribes regarding the 

management of traditional cultural properties. 

TI-CA-MA- 5. Provide information to staff and contractors regarding 

existing and historic use of the planning area by the tribes, Federal 

government trust responsibilities, and the importance of Native 

American treaty rights. 

Chapter 2: Tribal Rights and Interests	 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

August 2010	 2-18 
	 	 

2.3. RESOURCES 

2.3.1. Air and Atmospheric Values 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

No objective stated.	 

Objective Management Actions 

AAV-NA-MA- 1. Manage all public lands in the planning area as 

Class II Airsheds unless they are reclassified by the State as a result 

of the procedures prescribed in the Clean Air Act. 

AAV-NA-MA- 2. Administrative actions on the public lands would 

comply with the air quality classification for that specific area. 

AAV-NA-MA- 3. Consider the sensitivity of air resources in the 

affected area on a site-specific basis during project-level planning. 

AAV-NA-MA- 4. Design construction of management facilities and 

land treatments to minimize adverse impacts to the air resources. 

Stipulations would ensure project compatibility with air resource 

management. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

AAV-CA-G- 1. Ensure BLM management activities and authorized uses contribute to maintaining the 

quality of the planning area's air resources. 

Objective 

AAV-CA-O- 1. Maintain the 

quality of air resources and limit 

impacts to air quality to meet 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) and Idaho 

Department of Environmental 

Quality (DEQ) air quality 

standards. 

Management Actions 

AAV-CA-MA- 1. Manage the planning area airshed as Class II 

unless it is reclassified by the State through the process prescribed 

in the Clean Air Act. 

AAV-CA-MA- 2. Ensure BLM management activities and authorized 

uses, including prescribed fire, are designed to comply with Federal, 

State, and local air quality regulations, classifications, and standards. 

AAV-CA-MA- 3. Manage prescribed fires to minimize impacts of 

smoke to sensitive areas such as the Class I airshed of the Jarbidge 

Wilderness and the city of Twin Falls, ID, both of which are near the 

planning area. 

AAV-CA-MA- 4. Develop a burn plan with information and 

techniques to reduce or alter smoke emission levels for all 

prescribed fire activities. 

AAV-CA-MA- 5. Coordinate with the Montana-Idaho Airshed Group 

Smoke Management Program or its equivalent for all actions related 

to prescribed fire. Under this program, prescribed fire could be 

restricted when regional or local air quality is compromised or if the 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Air and Atmospheric Values 

2-19 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Geologic Features 

project would negatively affect visual quality in Class I airsheds, nonattainment areas, and other sensitive areas 

AAV-CA-MA- 6. Develop and implement a dust abatement strategy, 

including dust abatement stipulations, for BLM-authorized 

construction and maintenance activities that have the potential to 

generate large quantities of particulate matter. 

AAV-CA-MA- 7. Design BLM management activities and authorized 

uses to minimize night time light intrusions (e.g., modifications to the 

structure and timing of lighting). 

AAV-CA-MA- 8. Design BLM management activities and authorized 

uses to comply with State requirements for noise management and 

to minimize noise intrusion where noise has the potential to be a 

nuisance to adjacent residences on private land. 

2.3.2. Geologic Features 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

No objective stated. 

Management Actions 

GE-NA-MA- 1. Manage geologic resources so significant scientific, 

recreational, and educational values would be maintained or 

enhanced. 

GE-NA-MA- 2. Unique geological resources of the planning area 

would be protected and interpreted for the public. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

GE-CA-G- 1. Manage unique geologic features for their tribal, scientific, recreational, and educational 

use. 

Objective 

GE-CA-O- 1. Protect unique 

geologic features and provide 

opportunities for their use and 

enjoyment. 

Management Actions 

GE-CA-MA- 1. Manage unique geologic features so traditional tribal, 

scientific, recreational, and educational values would be maintained 

or enhanced. 

GE-CA-MA- 2. Conduct and maintain a cave inventory with 

participation from the tribes and interested organizations to identify 

and compile quantitative and qualitative data on cave resources and 

to determine cave significance in accordance with the Federal Cave 

Resources Protection Act of 1988. 

GE-CA-MA- 3. Based on the results of the cave inventory, determine 

the administrative designation needed for significant caves to provide 

adequate protection for significant cave resources. 

GE-CA-MA- 4. Set outcome-based management objectives and 

setting prescriptions for significant caves. 

August 2010 2-20 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Soil Resources

	 	 

2.3.3. Soil Resources 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

SR-NA-O- 1. Manage soils to 

maintain productivity and to 

minimize erosion. 

Management Actions 

SR-NA-MA- 1. During project-level planning, consider the sensitivity 

of soil resources in the affected area on a site-specific basis. 

SR-NA-MA- 2. Design the construction of management facilities and 

land treatments to minimize adverse impacts to the soil resources. 

Stipulations would ensure project compatibility with soil resource 

management. 

SR-NA-MA- 3. Manage native perennial range to attain good 

ecological condition. 

SR-NA-MA- 4. Mitigate erosion from irrigated agricultural lands onto 

adjacent public lands that could erode Sand Point paleontological 

deposits. 

Management Common to the No Action and All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

See goals in Management Specific to the No Action Alternative and Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objectives in Management 

Specific to the No Action 

Alternative and Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

SR-C-MA- 1. Minimize soil erosion by maintaining adequate 

perennial vegetation cover based on site potential. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal and Objective 

SR-CA-G- 1. Manage resources and uses to maintain or enhance biological and physical functions and 

stability of soils. 

Objective 

See Goal and Objective.	 

Management Actions 

SR-CA-MA- 1. Conduct management facility construction and 

maintenance and land treatments to reduce impacts to soil. 

Stipulations would ensure project consistency with soil management 

objectives. 

SR-CA-MA- 2. Work with County Highway Districts to reduce 

impacts from road maintenance along stream corridors and in areas 

of highly erosive soils. 

2-21 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Soil Resources 

SR-CA-MA- 3. Modify routes or mitigate the erosive effects of 

transportation and travel as needed. 

SR-CA-MA- 4. Where BLM management activities or authorized 

uses have resulted in accelerated erosion, revegetate or stabilize the 

area. 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

SR-I-MA- 1. Mitigate impacts of BLM management activities and 

authorized and allowed uses on soils with severe or very severe 

potential for wind erosion (218,000 acres; Map 5) or with high 

potential for water erosion (437,000 acres; Map 6) for watershed and 

ecosystem health. 

SR-I-MA- 2. Develop and implement an erosion control strategy for 

new land use authorizations, Special Recreation Permits (SRPs), 

and mineral exploration and development involving surface 

disturbance on slopes greater than 20% or on soils with severe or 

very severe potential for wind erosion or with high potential for water 

erosion. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

SR-II-MA- 1. Mitigate impacts of BLM management activities and 

authorized and allowed uses on soils with severe or very severe 

potential for wind erosion (218,000 acres; Map 5) or with high 

potential for water erosion (437,000 acres; Map 6) for watershed and 

ecosystem health. 

SR-II-MA- 2. Develop and implement an erosion control strategy for 

new land use authorizations, SRPs, and mineral exploration and 

development involving surface disturbance on slopes greater than 

20% or on soils with severe or very severe potential for wind erosion 

or with high potential for water erosion. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

SR-III-MA- 1. Mitigate impacts of BLM management activities and 

authorized and allowed uses on soils with severe or very severe 

potential for wind erosion (218,000 acres; Map 5) or with high 

August 2010 2-22 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Soil Resources 

potential for water erosion (437,000 acres; Map 6) for watershed and 

ecosystem health. 

SR-III-MA- 2. Develop and implement an erosion control strategy for 

new land use authorizations, SRPs, and mineral exploration and 

development involving surface disturbance on slopes greater than 

20% or on soils with severe or very severe potential for wind erosion 

or with high potential for water erosion. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

SR-IV-MA- 1. Mitigate impacts of BLM management activities and 

authorized and allowed uses on soils with moderate, severe, or very 

severe potential for wind erosion (1,122,000 acres; Map 5) or with 

medium or high potential for water erosion (1,289,000 acres; Map 6) 

for watershed and ecosystem health. 

SR-IV-MA- 2. Develop and implement an erosion control strategy for 

new land use authorizations, SRPs, and mineral exploration and 

development involving surface disturbance on slopes 20% to 40% or 

on soils with moderate, severe, or very severe potential for wind 

erosion or with medium or high potential for water erosion. No 

surface disturbance from these activities would be allowed on slopes 

greater than 40%. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

SR-V-MA- 1. Mitigate impacts of BLM management activities and 

authorized and allowed uses on soils with moderate, severe, or very 

severe potential for wind erosion (1,122,000 acres; Map 5) or with 

medium or high potential for water erosion (1,289,000 acres; Map 6) 

for watershed and ecosystem health. 

SR-V-MA- 2. Develop and implement an erosion control strategy and 

topsoil restoration plan for new land use authorizations, SRPs, and 

mineral exploration and development involving surface disturbance 

on slopes 20% to 40% or on soils with moderate, severe, or very 

severe potential for wind erosion or with medium or high potential for 

water erosion. No surface disturbance from these activities would be 

allowed on slopes greater than 40%. 

2-23 August 2010 
2.3.4. Water Resources 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

WR-NA-O- 1. Maintain or 

improve water quality in 

accordance with Federal and 

State standards. 

Management Actions 

WR-NA-MA- 1. During project-level planning, consider the sensitivity 

of water resources in the affected area on a site-specific basis. 

WR-NA-MA- 2. Design the construction of management facilities and 

land treatments to minimize adverse impacts to the water resources. 

Stipulations would ensure project compatibility with water resource 

management. 

WR-NA-MA- 3. Facilities and structures designed to maintain or 

improve water sources, provide new water sources, control water 

level or flow characteristics, or maintain or improve water quality may 

be developed. Proposals that include dewatering of the streambed 

would not be allowed. 

WR-NA-MA- 4. Work closely with the Idaho Department of Water 

Resources (IDWR), Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, US 

Army Corps of Engineers, and other Federal, State, and local 

agencies to determine appropriate location and designs for such 

projects. 

WR-NA-MA- 5. Maintain recommended instream flows for the 

maintenance and preservation of aquatic and riparian ecosystems. 

WR-NA-MA- 6. A variety of methods may be employed to maintain, 

improve, protect, and restore watershed conditions. 

WR-NA-MA- 7. Give priority to meeting emergency watershed needs 

due to flooding, severe drought, or fire. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

WR-CA-G- 1. Maintain or improve the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources. 

Objective 

WR-CA-O- 1. Make progress 

towards meeting Federal and 

State water quality standards. 

Management Actions 

WR-CA-MA- 1. Priority streams for management of water quality 

include streams containing special status species and their habitat, 

fish-bearing streams, and 303(d)-listed streams. Map 17 displays the 

location of streams meeting these criteria in 2009; this map can be 

updated to reflect changes in a stream’s status through the life of the 

plan. 

WR-CA-MA- 2. Implement the ARMS to achieve water resource 

objectives (Appendix D). 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Water Resources 

August 2010 2-24 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

WR-CA-MA- 3. Mitigate the impacts of BLM management activities 

and authorized and allowed uses on water quality to comply with 

Federal, State, and local water quality regulations. 

WR-CA-MA- 4. Modify or suspend BLM management activities and 

authorized and allowed uses that are a factor in not meeting water 

quality standards. 

WR-CA-MA- 5. Where applicable, incorporate best management 

practices (BMPs) to maintain and improve water quality (Appendix 

E). Implement recommendations from state water quality plans to 

achieve goals and objectives (e.g., Idaho Agricultural Pollution 

Abatement Plan). 

WR-CA-MA- 6. Consider new water development projects and 

improvements to existing water development projects if impacts to 

water and riparian resources can be mitigated; see the Livestock 

Grazing section for additional guidance on water developments. See 

the Wildland Fire Ecology and Management section for guidance on 

water developments for fire suppression activities. 

WR-CA-MA- 7. Consult with the tribes and work with Federal, State, 

and local agencies when determining location and designs for water 

development projects. 

WR-CA-MA- 8. Coordinate with IDWR and DEQ to identify 

opportunities to mitigate impacts of water management on public 

land resources. 

2.3.5. Vegetation Communities 

2.3.5.1. Upland Vegetation 

The Upland Vegetation section outlines goals and objectives for all vegetation treatments. Management 

actions for restoration treatments, treatments for annual communities, and treatments for livestock are 

described in this section. Treatments for weeds and fuels are in the Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 

and Wildland Fire Ecology and Management sections. 

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

grouped into five vegetation sub-groups (VSGs; see the Upland Vegetation section in Chapter 3); 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. 

2-25 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Upland Vegetation 

The planning area was divided into Vegetation Management Areas (VMAs) A, B, C, and D, creating westeast bands across the planning area based on potential natural community (PNC), elevation, and mean 

annual precipitation (Map 8). 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objectives 

UV-NA-O- 1. Improve lands in 

poor ecological condition across 

all Multiple Use Areas (MUAs; 

Map 4). Improve lands in MUA 

14 through natural plant 

succession and removal of 

livestock. Maintain lands that 

are in good and excellent 

ecological condition in MUA 10. 

UV-NA-O- 2. Maintain nonnative perennial communities. 

Management Actions 

UV-NA-MA- 1. Develop Multiple Use Activity Plans for MUAs 11, 12, 

and 15. The plan for MUA 11 would include grazing, wildlife, and fire 

management coordination, and an ad-hoc group of technical, user, 

and conservation interests would be set up to provide input into the 

plan. 

UV-NA-MA- 2. Maintain non-native perennial communities for 

livestock as follows: 

 499 acres in MUA 4 

 75,107 acres in MUA 6 

 155,612 acres in MUA 7 

 1,866 acres in MUA 10 

 21,177 acres in MUA 11 

 23,518 acres in MUA 12 

 47,510 acres in MUA 13 

 24,159 acres in MUA 15 

UV-NA-MA- 3. Implement seeding treatments for livestock as 

follows: 

 4,254 acres in MUA 15 

 6,300 acres in MUA 16 

UV-NA-MA- 4. Implement brush control and seeding treatments for 

livestock as follows: 

 9,245 acres in MUA 11 

 2,000 acres in MUA 12 

 1,787 acres in MUA 13 

UV-NA-MA- 5. Implement brush control treatments for livestock as 

follows: 

 5,000 acres in MUA 11 

 4,100 acres in MUA 12 

 7,500 acres in MUA 15 

 15,000 acres in MUA 16 

UV-NA-MA- 6. Most of the sites to be treated are in poor or fair 

vegetative conditions and have a low potential to improve under 

other management practices. Most of the vegetation would be 

eliminated during seedbed preparation, and the site would be 

seeded with species adapted to the site. The final selection of the 

species to be seeded would depend on the planned use of the site 

and the management objectives for the allotment. Seed would be 

drilled wherever possible. The application of mulch or fertilizer would 

be prescribed based on site characteristics. 

August 2010 2-26 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation

	 

	 

	 

	 

UV-NA-MA- 7. Implement interseeding or reseeding treatments for 

wildlife as follows: 

 250 acres in MUA 10 

 500 acres in MUA 11 

 500 acres in MUA 12 

 4,400 acres in MUA 13 

 3,750 acres in MUA 15 

UV-NA-MA- 8. Desirable plant species would be interseeded with 

vegetation. A seed dribbler used with a crawler tractor, a small 

scalper/seeder, or range drill would be used to interseed strips. 

Broadcast seedings could possibly be used as well. Species to be 

seeded would be selected to meet management objectives 

developed for the allotment. 

UV-NA-MA- 9. Interseeding and reseeding projects in MUAs with 

objectives to improve ecological condition to benefit wildlife or 

livestock will use shrub, forb, and grass seed mixtures that are 

normally found in that type of ecological zone or type. 

UV-NA-MA- 10. The order of priority for vegetation treatment would 

be: 

 Areas where unacceptable soil loss is occurring 

 Areas where the livestock operator is grazing at levels below 

preference 

	 Areas where excessive annual vegetation is causing 

management problems or economic burdens, i.e., season of use 

restriction or high fire management costs 

 Areas where unacceptable wildlife habitat condition exists 

(appropriate seed mixtures for wildlife will be used) 

 Areas for overall multiple use improvement using seed mixtures 

for both wildlife and livestock 

UV-NA-MA- 11. Burning is proposed to reduce the amount of big 

sagebrush and/or other brush on a site. Burning would normally be 

done during July to October, depending on the specific prescription 

written for each area, desired results, weather, and moisture 

conditions. Burn plans would be developed for each burn. 

UV-NA-MA- 12. Reseed all areas disturbed during project 

construction with a mixture of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

UV-NA-MA- 13. Rehabilitated or manipulated sites are considered to 

be in good condition from a watershed standpoint when at least 75% 

(by weight) of the sites potential for production is composed of 

perennial vegetation. 

UV-NA-MA- 14. Chemical control of sagebrush would not be 

allowed. 

UV-NA-MA- 15. No reference areas would be identified. 

2-27 August 2010 
Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

UV-CA-G- 1. Manage upland vegetation communities to promote soil stability, water infiltration, nutrient 

cycling, and energy flow; provide habitat for sage-grouse and other sagebrush steppe obligates; and 

provide for multiple use. 

Objective 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Management Actions 

All VMAs 

UV-CA-MA- 1. Design BLM management activities and authorized 

uses in consideration of plant reproductive and physiological needs 

with a focus on the critical growing season, as well as vegetation 

objectives; guidelines for specific uses are found in the appropriate 

sections. 

UV-CA-MA- 2. Implement drought management guidelines during 

periods of drought to maintain or achieve long-term resource 

productivity (Appendix F). 

UV-CA-MA- 3. Rest vegetation treatment areas from uses, including 

but not limited to livestock and wild horse grazing and recreational 

use, until treatment objectives are met and are predicted to be 

sustainable. This guideline would not apply to uses that do not 

conflict with the treatment objectives. 

UV-CA-MA- 4. Assess proposed vegetation treatments in 

consultation with the tribes and State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) for their potential to affect cultural resources. Where 

previous inventory has been sufficient to identify vulnerable cultural 

resources, no inventory should be needed; however, where 

adequate inventory is lacking, inventory of the area as determined in 

consultation with the SHPO would be conducted. 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Upland Vegetation 

August 2010 2-28 
 

 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

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. 

Objectives 

VMA A 

UV-I-O- 1. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 50,000 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

97,500 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

5,000 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

32,500 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

32,500 

Unvegetated 

Areas 2,500 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

Management Actions 

VMA A 

UV-I-MA- 1. Treat approximately 33% of annual communities. 

Annual communities would be restored to native shrubland in Wildlife 

Tracts, the Middle Snake and Lower Bruneau Canyon ACECs, and 

the Oregon NHT protective corridor. Half of the annual communities 

within the Deadman-Yahoo SRMA would be treated using firetolerant native and non-native species. 

UV-I-MA- 2. Restore approximately 5% of non-native perennial 

communities to native shrubland. Treatments would focus on the 

Wildlife Tracts and the Middle Snake and Lower Bruneau Canyon 

ACECs. Actively maintain the remainder of the non-native perennial 

communities for livestock grazing. 

UV-I-MA- 3. Non-native understory and native shrubland 

communities would not be a focus for active restoration treatments. 

UV-I-MA- 4. Native grassland communities will not be a focus for 

active restoration treatments. Natural succession of shrubs would be 

allowed throughout native grassland communities. 

UV-I-MA- 5. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for vegetation 

treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

2-29 August 2010 
 

VMA B 

UV-I-O- 2. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 17,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

147,500 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

17,500 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

97,500 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

335,000 

Unvegetated 

Areas 15,000 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

VMA B 

UV-I-MA- 6. Restore approximately 50% of annual communities to 

native shrubland, focusing on big game winter range and Wildlife 

Tracts. 

UV-I-MA- 7. Restore approximately 20% of non-native perennial 

communities to native shrubland, focusing on big game winter range. 

Actively maintain the remainder of the non-native perennial 

communities for livestock grazing. 

UV-I-MA- 8. Restore approximately 33% of non-native understory 

communities to native shrubland, focusing on big game winter range. 

The remainder of the non-native understory communities may be 

treated to introduce forbs to the understory. 

UV-I-MA- 9. Restore approximately 50% of native grassland 

communities to native shrubland. Treatments would focus on big 

game winter range and sage-grouse habitat. Natural succession of 

shrubs would be allowed in the remainder of the native grassland 

communities. 

UV-I-MA- 10. Native shrubland communities may be treated to 

introduce forbs and late-seral grasses to the understory. 

UV-I-MA- 11. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for vegetation 

treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

August 2010 2-30 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

 

VMA C 

UV-I-O- 3. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 7,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

37,500 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

5,000 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

65,000 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

195,000 

Unvegetated 

Areas 2,500 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500 

VMA C 

UV-I-MA- 12. Treatment of annual communities within this VMA 

would be limited due to the location of these areas at canyon 

bottoms and within WSAs. Localized treatments may be used when 

necessary. 

UV-I-MA- 13. Restore approximately 33% of non-native perennial 

communities to native shrubland, focusing on big game winter range, 

sage-grouse habitat, and the Canyonlands and Jarbidge Foothills 

SRMAs. Actively maintain the remaining non-native perennial 

communities for livestock grazing. 

UV-I-MA- 14. Restore approximately 75% of non-native understory 

communities to native shrubland, focusing on big game winter range, 

sage-grouse habitat, and the Canyonlands and Jarbidge Foothills 

SRMAs. 

UV-I-MA- 15. Restore approximately 50% of native grassland 

communities to native shrubland, focusing on big game winter range 

and connecting native shrubland communities. Natural succession of 

shrubs would be allowed throughout native grassland communities. 

UV-I-MA- 16. Native shrubland communities may be treated to 

introduce forbs and late-seral grasses to the understory. 

UV-I-MA- 17. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for vegetation 

treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

2-31 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

VMA D 

UV-I-O- 4. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 2,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

15,000 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

12,500 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

17,500 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

152,500 

Unvegetated 

Areas 10,000 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

VMA D 

UV-I-MA- 18. Treat approximately 50% of annual communities to 

move toward non-native perennial; treatments would focus on 

species that provide wildlife food and cover (e.g., four-wing saltbush, 

alfalfa, winterfat). 

UV-I-MA- 19. Actively maintain non-native perennial communities for 

livestock grazing. Up to 50% of non-native perennial communities 

may be seeded with species that provide wildlife food and cover 

(e.g., four-wing saltbush, alfalfa, winterfat). 

UV-I-MA- 20. Non-native understory communities would not be a 

focus for active restoration treatments. 

UV-I-MA- 21. Restore approximately 67% of native grassland 

communities to native shrubland; treatments would include primarily 

native species that provide wildlife food and cover (e.g., bitterbrush, 

chokecherry, winterfat); approximately 10% of native grassland 

communities would be treated with non-native species that provide 

wildlife food and cover, primarily around similarly treated annual 

communities. Natural succession of shrubs would be allowed 

throughout native grassland communities. 

UV-I-MA- 22. Native shrubland communities may be treated to 

introduce forbs and late-seral grasses to the understory. 

UV-I-MA- 23. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for vegetation 

treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

August 2010 2-32 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

All VMAs 

UV-I-MA- 24. The first priority for implementing vegetation 

treatments would be treatments identified for VMA C to improve 

habitat for mule deer and sage-grouse; the second priority would be
 

treatments identified for VMA A to move toward perennial vegetation. 

Opportunities for treatments outside these priority areas would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis.
 

UV-I-MA- 25. Focus restoration treatments identified for each VMA 

on habitat for sage-grouse, other special status species, and mule 

deer.
 

UV-I-MA- 26. The toolbox to restore or treat upland vegetation 

communities would include:
 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; and 

 Targeted grazing. 

Prescribed fire would not be allowed. See the Livestock Grazing
 

section for more information on targeted grazing.
 

UV-I-MA- 27. Upland vegetation treatments may use native species, 

including cultivars of native species, and non-native species, 

consistent with management actions to achieve vegetation 

objectives. Native species would be used in vegetation treatments 

when practical, with special emphasis on species of importance to 

the tribes. However, desirable non-native species may be used on 

harsh or degraded sites, when native seed is not available, or where 

they would structurally mimic the natural plant community and 

prevent soil loss and invasion by noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

The non-native species used would be those that have the highest 

probability of establishment on these sites. These "placeholders" 

would maintain the area for potential future native restoration. Native 

seed would be used more frequently and at larger scales as species 

adapted to local areas become more available.
 

UV-I-MA- 28. Create 75 ungrazed reference areas (12,000 acres) in
 

annual, non-native perennial, non-native understory, native 

grassland, and native shrubland communities (Map 11). Each 

reference area would be approximately 160 acres and would be 

paired with an adjacent grazed area in a similar vegetation type and 

condition to monitor the effects of livestock grazing on a variety of 

plant communities. The absence of grazing would be the only 

difference between management of reference areas and that of 

adjacent areas with similar vegetation.
 

UV-I-MA- 29. Reseed all areas disturbed during project construction, 

maintenance, or removal with a mixture of grasses, forbs, or shrubs
 

appropriate to surrounding vegetation. 

UV-I-MA- 30. Assess biological soil crusts in native grassland and 

shrubland communities and manage them to move toward site 

potential by modifying levels and timing of BLM management 

activities and authorized uses during periods when soil crusts are 

most vulnerable to damage.
 

2-33 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Upland Vegetation 

 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

UV-II-G- 1. Manage vegetation to increase commercial uses while maintaining native plant communities 

and habitat for sage-grouse. 

Objectives 

VMA A 

UV-II-O- 1. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 30,000 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

140,000 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

5,000 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

25,000 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

17,500 

Unvegetated 

Areas 2,500 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

Management Actions 

VMA A 

UV-II-MA- 1. Treat approximately 60% of annual plant communities 

to move toward non-native perennial communities, with an emphasis 

on using fire-tolerant species that provide forage for livestock. 

UV-II-MA- 2. Actively maintain non-native perennial plant 

communities for livestock grazing. 

UV-II-MA- 3. Non-native understory, native grassland, and native 

shrubland communities would not be a focus for active restoration 

treatments. 

UV-II-MA- 4. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for vegetation 

treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

August 2010 2-34 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation

 

VMA B 

UV-II-O- 2. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 7,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

220,000 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

17,500 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

195,000 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

175,000 

Unvegetated 

Areas 15,000 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

VMA B 

UV-II-MA- 5. Treat approximately 75% of annual communities to 

move toward non-native perennial communities, focusing on areas 

adjacent to non-native perennial communities. 

UV-II-MA- 6. Actively maintain non-native perennial plant 

communities for livestock grazing. 

UV-II-MA- 7. Treat approximately 33% of non-native understory 

communities to move toward non-native perennial communities, 

focusing on pastures where non-native perennial communities 

predominate. 

UV-II-MA- 8. Native grassland communities may be treated to 

increase late-seral grasses. Native grassland areas that have been 

seeded with shrubs would be allowed to transition to native 

shrubland, and shrubs would continue to be allowed in ES&BAR 

seedings. Natural succession of shrubs would be allowed throughout 

native grassland communities. 

UV-II-MA- 9. Native shrubland communities may be treated to 

increase late-seral grasses. Shrubs would continue to be allowed in 

ES&BAR seedings. 

UV-II-MA- 10. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for 

vegetation treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

2-35 August 2010 
 

VMA C 

UV-II-O- 3. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 7,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

67,500 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

10,000 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

132,500 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

92,500 

Unvegetated 

Areas 2,500 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

VMA C 

UV-II-MA- 11. Treatment of annual communities within this VMA 

would be limited due to the location of these areas at canyon 

bottoms and within WSAs. Localized treatments may be used when 

necessary. 

UV-II-MA- 12. Actively maintain non-native perennial plant 

communities for livestock grazing. 

UV-II-MA- 13. Treat approximately 50% of non-native understory 

communities to move toward non-native perennial communities, 

focusing on pastures where non-native perennial communities 

predominate. 

UV-II-MA- 14. Native grassland communities may be treated to 

increase late-seral grasses. Native grassland areas that have been 

seeded with shrubs would be allowed to transition to native 

shrubland, and shrubs would continue to be allowed in ES&BAR 

seedings. Natural succession of shrubs would be allowed throughout 

native grassland communities. 

UV-II-MA- 15. Native shrubland communities may be treated to 

increase late-seral grasses. Shrubs would continue to be allowed in 

ES&BAR seedings. 

UV-II-MA- 16. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for 

vegetation treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

August 2010 2-36 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

VMA D 

UV-II-O- 4. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 2,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

20,000 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

0 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

72,500 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

105,000 

Unvegetated 

Areas 10,000 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

VMA D 

UV-II-MA- 17. Treat approximately 50% of annual communities to 

move toward non-native perennial communities, focusing on Taylor 

Pocket and annual areas near China Creek. 

UV-II-MA- 18. Actively maintain non-native perennial plant 

communities for livestock grazing. 

UV-II-MA- 19. Actively maintain non-native understory communities 

for livestock grazing by removing shrubs. 

UV-II-MA- 20. Native grassland communities may be treated to 

increase late-seral grasses. Native grassland areas that have been 

seeded with shrubs would be allowed to transition to native 

shrubland, and shrubs would continue to be allowed in ES&BAR 

seedings. Natural succession of shrubs would be allowed throughout 

native grassland communities. 

UV-II-MA- 21. Native shrubland communities may be treated to 

increase late-seral grasses. Shrubs would continue to be allowed in 

ES&BAR seedings. 

UV-II-MA- 22. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for 

vegetation treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

2-37 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Upland Vegetation 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

All VMAs 

UV-II-MA- 23. The first priority for implementing vegetation 

treatments would be treatments identified for VMA A to increase 

perennial forage for livestock; the second priority would be 

treatments identified for VMA B to increase forage for livestock. 

Opportunities for treatments outside these priority areas would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis.
 

UV-II-MA- 24. Focus restoration treatments identified for each VMA 

on habitat for sage-grouse and other special status species.
 

UV-II-MA- 25. The toolbox to restore or treat upland vegetation 

communities would include:
 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; 

 Targeted grazing; and 

 Prescribed fire. 

Prescribed fire would not be allowed in native grassland or native 

shrubland communities. See the Livestock Grazing section for more 

information on targeted grazing. 

UV-II-MA- 26. Use primarily non-native species in upland vegetation 

treatments, consistent with management actions to achieve 

vegetation objectives; fire tolerant species would also be used, 

primarily in annual communities. 

UV-II-MA- 27. Create 52 ungrazed reference areas (2,000 acres) in
 

native grassland and native shrubland communities, as well as nonnative perennial communities that have burned multiple times in the 

last 20 years (Map 12). Each reference area would be approximately 

40 acres and would be paired with an adjacent grazed area in a 

similar vegetation type and condition to monitor the effects of 

livestock grazing on a variety of plant communities. The absence of
 

grazing would be the only difference between management of 

reference areas and that of adjacent areas with similar vegetation.
 

UV-II-MA- 28. Reseed all areas disturbed during project 

construction, maintenance, or removal with grasses.
 

August 2010 2-38 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation

 


 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

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

Objective 

VMA A 

UV-III-O- 1. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 37,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

130,000 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

5,000 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

25,000 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

17,500 

Unvegetated 

Areas 5,000 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

Management Actions 

VMA A 

UV-III-MA- 1. Treat at least 45% of annual communities with firetolerant, non-native perennial species between fuel breaks to reduce 

the fine fuel load. 

UV-III-MA- 2. Non-native perennial, non-native understory, native 

grassland, and native shrubland communities would not be a focus 

for vegetation treatments outside treatments discussed in the 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

UV-III-MA- 3. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for vegetation 

treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

2-39 August 2010 
 

VMA B 

UV-III-O- 2. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 10,000 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

215,000 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

25,000 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

90,000 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

270,000 

Unvegetated 

Areas 20,000 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

VMA B 

UV-III-MA- 4. Treat approximately 75% of annual communities with 

fire-tolerant non-native perennial species, focusing on areas adjacent 

to non-native perennial communities. 

UV-III-MA- 5. Non-native perennial, non-native understory, and 

native shrubland communities would not be a focus for vegetation 

treatments outside treatments discussed in the Noxious Weeds and 

Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

sections. 

UV-III-MA- 6. Treat approximately 50% of native grassland 

communities to incorporate a shrub component to break up the 

continuity of grassland fuels. 

UV-III-MA- 7. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for vegetation 

treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

August 2010 2-40 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

VMA C 

UV-III-O- 3. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 7,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

60,000 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

22,500 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

60,000 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

157,500 

Unvegetated 

Areas 5,000 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

VMA C 

UV-III-MA- 8. Treatment of annual communities within this VMA 

would be limited due to the location of these areas at canyon 

bottoms and within WSAs. Localized treatments may be used when 

necessary. 

UV-III-MA- 9. Non-native perennial, non-native understory, and 

native shrubland communities would not be a focus for vegetation 

treatments outside treatments discussed in the Noxious Weeds and 

Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

sections. 

UV-III-MA- 10. Treat approximately 50% of native grassland 

communities to incorporate a shrub component to break up the 

continuity of grassland fuels. 

UV-III-MA- 11. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for 

vegetation treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

2-41 August 2010 
 

Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

VMA D 

UV-III-O- 4. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 2,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

7,500 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

10,000 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

55,000 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

125,000 

Unvegetated 

Areas 10,000 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

VMA D 

UV-III-MA- 12. Restore approximately 75% of annual communities to 

native grassland using fire-tolerant native species. 

UV-III-MA- 13. Non-native perennial, non-native understory, and 

native shrubland communities would not be a focus for vegetation 

treatments outside treatments discussed in the Noxious Weeds and 

Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

sections. 

UV-III-MA- 14. Treat approximately 30% of native grassland 

communities to incorporate a shrub component to break up the 

continuity of grassland fuels. 

UV-III-MA- 15. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for 

vegetation treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

August 2010 2-42 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

All VMAs 

UV-III-MA- 16. The first priority for implementing vegetation 

treatments would be treatments identified for VMA A to help lengthen 

the fire return interval; the second priority would be treatments 

identified for VMA D to protect native shrubland communities. 

Opportunities for treatments outside these priority areas would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis.
 

UV-III-MA- 17. Focus vegetation treatments identified for each VMA 

on protecting or restoring habitat for sage-grouse and other special
 

status species.
 

UV-III-MA- 18. The toolbox to restore or treat upland vegetation 

communities would include:
 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; 

 Targeted grazing; and 

 Prescribed fire. 

See the Livestock Grazing section for more information on targeted
 

grazing.
 

UV-III-MA- 19. Fire-tolerant and fire-resistant species would have 

high priority for upland vegetation treatments. Treatments may also 

use other native species, including cultivars of native species, and 

non-native species, consistent with management actions to achieve 

vegetation objectives. 

UV-III-MA- 20. Create 75 ungrazed reference areas (3,000 acres) in 

annual, non-native perennial, non-native understory, native 

grassland, and native shrubland communities (Map 13). Each 

reference area would be approximately 40 acres and would be 

paired with an adjacent grazed area in a similar vegetation type and 

condition to monitor the effects of livestock grazing on a variety of 

plant communities. The absence of grazing would be the only 

difference between management of reference areas and that of 

adjacent areas with similar vegetation.
 

UV-III-MA- 21. Treat all areas disturbed during project construction, 

maintenance, or removal as appropriate to reduce wildland fire size 

and intensity. 

2-43 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Upland Vegetation 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

 

Goal 

UV-IV-G- 1. Manage vegetation to restore the resiliency of ecosystem structure and function and reduce 

fragmentation of habitat for sage-grouse and other native species. 

Objective 

VMA A 

UV-IV-O- 1. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 30,000 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

87,500 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

5,000 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

12,500 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

82,500 

Unvegetated 

Areas 2,500 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

Management Actions 

VMA A 

UV-IV-MA- 1. Treat approximately 60% of annual plant communities. 

Areas along the Snake River to the top of the canyon rim, drainages 

into the Snake River, and areas that would help connect native 

grassland and shrubland communities would be restored to native 

shrubland. Areas adjacent to non-native perennial communities 

would be treated using non-native species. 

UV-IV-MA- 2. Restore approximately 25% of non-native perennial 

plant communities to native shrubland. Treatments would focus on 

connecting native grassland and shrubland communities in the 

Saylor Creek Herd Management Area (HMA) and in the eastern 

portion of the VMA. Natural succession of shrubs would be allowed 

in the remainder of the non-native perennial communities. 

UV-IV-MA- 3. Non-native understory communities would not be a 

focus for active restoration treatments to native shrubland. 

Treatments in these areas would focus on introducing forbs to the 

understory. 

UV-IV-MA- 4. Restore approximately 50% of native grassland 

communities to native shrubland. Treatments would focus on areas 

adjacent to native shrubland communities. Natural succession of 

shrubs would be allowed throughout native grassland communities. 

UV-IV-MA- 5. Native shrubland communities may be treated to 

introduce forbs and late-seral grasses to the understory. Forb 

species could include both native and non-native species. 

UV-IV-MA- 6. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for vegetation 

treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

August 2010 2-44 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

VMA B 

UV-IV-O- 2. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 7,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

65,000 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

72,500 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

97,500 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

372,500 

Unvegetated 

Areas 15,000 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

VMA B 

UV-IV-MA- 7. Treat approximately 75% of annual communities. 

Areas adjacent to native grassland and shrubland communities 

would be restored to native shrubland; areas adjacent to non-native 

perennial communities would be treated with non-native species. 

UV-IV-MA- 8. Restore approximately 40% of non-native perennial 

communities to native shrubland, focusing on the Inside Desert 

ACEC and areas in the central and eastern portion of the VMA 

adjacent to native communities. Introduce shrubs into approximately 

30% of non-native perennial communities, focusing on areas 

adjacent to native communities. Natural succession of shrubs would 

be allowed in the remainder of the non-native perennial communities. 

UV-IV-MA- 9. Restore approximately 33% of non-native understory 

communities to native shrubland, focusing on areas adjacent to 

native communities. The remainder of the non-native understory 

communities may be treated to introduce forbs to the understory. 

UV-IV-MA- 10. Restore approximately 50% of native grassland 

communities to native shrubland. Treatments would focus on areas 

that would expand or connect native shrubland communities. Natural 

succession of shrubs would be allowed throughout native grassland 

communities. 

UV-IV-MA- 11. Native shrubland communities may be treated to 

introduce forbs and late-seral grasses to the understory. 

UV-IV-MA- 12. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for 

vegetation treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

2-45 August 2010 
VMA C 

UV-IV-O- 3. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 7,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

0 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

50,000 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

32,500 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

220,000 

Unvegetated 

Areas 2,500 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

VMA C 

UV-IV-MA- 13. Treatment of annual communities within this VMA 

would be limited due to the location of these areas at canyon 

bottoms and within WSAs. Localized treatments may be used when 

necessary. 

UV-IV-MA- 14. Restore approximately 50% of non-native perennial 

communities to native shrubland, focusing on ACECs and islands 

within native communities. Treat the remaining non-native perennial 

communities to introduce shrubs; natural succession of shrubs would 

also be allowed in non-native perennial communities. 

UV-IV-MA- 15. Restore approximately 5% of non-native understory 

communities to native shrubland, focusing on areas adjacent to 

native communities. The remainder of the non-native understory 

communities may be treated to introduce forbs to the understory. 

UV-IV-MA- 16. Restore approximately 75% of native grassland 

communities to native shrubland. Treatments would focus on areas 

that would expand or connect native shrubland communities. Natural 

succession of shrubs would be allowed throughout native grassland 

communities. 

UV-IV-MA- 17. Native shrubland communities may be treated to 

introduce forbs and late-seral grasses to the understory. 

UV-IV-MA- 18. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for 

vegetation treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

August 2010 2-46 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

VMA D 

UV-IV-O- 4. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 2,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

0 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

5,000 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

7,500 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

185,000 

Unvegetated 

Areas 10,000 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

VMA D 

UV-IV-MA- 19. Restore approximately 50% of annual communities 

native shrubland, focusing on Taylor Pocket and annual areas near 

China Creek. 

UV-IV-MA- 20. Restore approximately 75% of non-native perennial 

communities to native shrubland; treatment would focus on areas 

adjacent to native shrubland communities. The remaining non-native 

perennial communities would be treated to introduce shrubs; natural 

succession of shrubs would be allowed throughout non-native 

perennial communities. 

UV-IV-MA- 21. Restore approximately 67% of non-native understory 

communities to native shrubland, focusing on areas adjacent to 

native shrubland communities. The remainder of the non-native 

understory communities may be treated to introduce forbs to the 

understory. 

UV-IV-MA- 22. Restore approximately 90% of native grassland 

communities to native shrubland. 

UV-IV-MA- 23. Native shrubland communities may be treated to 

introduce forbs and late-seral grasses to the understory. 

UV-IV-MA- 24. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for 

vegetation treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

2-47 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Upland Vegetation 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

All VMAs 

UV-IV-MA- 25. The first priority for implementing vegetation 

treatments would be treatments identified for VMA D to improve 

sage-grouse habitat; the second priority would be treatments 

identified for VMA C to reconnect and expand habitat for sagegrouse. Opportunities for treatments outside these priority areas 

would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

UV-IV-MA- 26. Focus restoration treatments identified for each VMA 

on habitat for sage-grouse, other special status species, mule deer, 

and pronghorn. 

UV-IV-MA- 27. The toolbox to restore or treat upland vegetation 

communities would include:
 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; 

 Targeted grazing; and 

 Prescribed fire. 

See the Livestock Grazing section for more information on targeted
 

grazing.
 

UV-IV-MA- 28. Upland vegetation treatments may use native 

species, including cultivars of native species, and non-native 

species, consistent with management actions to achieve vegetation 

objectives. Native species would be used in vegetation treatments 

when practical, with special emphasis on species of importance to 

the tribes. Desirable non-native species may be used on harsh or
 

degraded sites, when native seed is not available, or where they 

would structurally mimic the natural plant community and prevent soil 

loss and invasion by noxious weeds and invasive plants. The nonnative species used would be those that have the highest probability 

of establishment on these sites. These "placeholders" would 

maintain the area for potential future native restoration. Native seed
 

would be used more frequently and at larger scales as species 

adapted to local areas become more available.
 

UV-IV-MA- 29. Create 75 ungrazed reference areas (12,000 acres) 

in annual, non-native perennial, non-native understory, native 

grassland, and native shrubland communities (Map 11). Each 

reference area would be approximately 160 acres and would be 

paired with an adjacent grazed area in a similar vegetation type and 

condition to monitor the effects of livestock grazing on a variety of 

plant communities. The absence of grazing would be the only 

difference between management of reference areas and that of 

adjacent areas with similar vegetation.
 

UV-IV-MA- 30. Reseed all areas disturbed during project 

construction, maintenance, or removal with a mixture of native 

grasses, forbs, or shrubs that are appropriate to the ecological site.
 

UV-IV-MA- 31. Assess biological soil crusts and manage them to 

move toward site potential by modifying levels and timing of BLM 

management activities and authorized uses during periods when soil
 

crusts are most vulnerable to damage.
 

August 2010 2-48 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

UV-V-G- 1. Manage vegetation to move toward historic vegetation communities by sustaining, improving, 

or increasing native plant communities that provide habitat for sage-grouse and other special status 

species. 

Objectives 

VMA A 

UV-V-O- 1. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 55,000 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

72,500 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

30,000 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

25,000 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

35,000 

Unvegetated 

Areas 2,500 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

Management Actions 

VMA A 

UV-V-MA- 1. Restore approximately 25% of annual communities to 

native shrubland. Treatments would focus on areas occupied by 

special status plants, the Middle Snake and Lower Bruneau Canyon 

ACECs, the Oregon NHT protective corridor, and areas adjacent to 

native grassland and shrubland. 

UV-V-MA- 2. Treat approximately 25% of non-native perennial 

communities to introduce shrubs. Treatments would focus on the 

Middle Snake and Lower Bruneau Canyon ACECs, the Oregon NHT 

protective corridor, and areas adjacent to native grassland and 

shrubland. Natural succession of shrubs would be allowed 

throughout non-native perennial communities. 

UV-V-MA- 3. Non-native understory, native grassland communities, 

and native shrubland communities would not be a focus for active 

restoration treatments. Natural succession of shrubs would be 

allowed throughout native grassland communities. 

UV-V-MA- 4. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for vegetation 

treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

2-49 August 2010 
VMA B 

UV-V-O- 2. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 17,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

60,000 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

150,000 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

130,000 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

257,500 

Unvegetated 

Areas 15,000 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

VMA B 

UV-V-MA- 5. Restore approximately 50% of annual communities to 

native shrubland, focusing on the Sagebrush Sea ACEC. 

UV-V-MA- 6. Treat approximately 67% of the non-native perennial 

communities to introduce shrubs, focusing on the Sagebrush Sea 

ACEC. Natural succession of shrubs would be allowed throughout 

non-native perennial communities. 

UV-V-MA- 7. Restore approximately 33% of native grassland 

communities to native shrubland, focusing on the Sagebrush Sea 

ACEC. Natural succession of shrubs would be allowed throughout 

native grassland communities. 

UV-V-MA- 8. Non-native understory and native shrubland 

communities would not be a focus for active restoration treatments. 

UV-V-MA- 9. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for vegetation 

treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Upland Vegetation 

August 2010 2-50 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

 

VMA C 

UV-V-O- 3. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 7,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

17,500 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

62,500 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

65,000 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

157,500 

Unvegetated 

Areas 2,500 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

VMA C 

UV-V-MA- 10. Treatment of annual communities within this VMA 

would be limited due to the location of these areas at canyon 

bottoms and within WSAs. Localized treatments may be used when 

necessary. 

UV-V-MA- 11. Treat approximately 70% of non-native perennial 

communities to introduce shrubs, focusing on sage-grouse, bighorn 

sheep, and slickspot peppergrass habitat. Natural succession of 

shrubs would be allowed throughout non-native perennial 

communities. 

UV-V-MA- 12. Restore approximately 50% of native grassland 

communities to native shrubland. Natural succession of shrubs 

would be allowed throughout native grassland communities. 

UV-V-MA- 13. Non-native understory and native shrubland 

communities would not be a focus for active restoration treatments. 

UV-V-MA- 14. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for 

vegetation treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

2-51 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

VMA D 

UV-V-O- 4. Manage vegetation 

to achieve the VSG acres (+/- 

5%) described below: 

VSG Number of 

AcresA 

Annual 

Communities 2,500 

Non-Native 

Perennial 

Communities 

2,500 

Non-Native 

Understory 

Communities 

15,000 

Native 

Grassland 

Communities 

25,000 

Native 

Shrubland 

Communities 

155,000 

Unvegetated 

Areas 10,000 

A Acres are rounded to the nearest 

2,500. 

VMA D 

UV-V-MA- 15. Restore approximately 50% of annual communities to 

native shrubland, focusing on Taylor Pocket and annual areas near 

China Creek. 

UV-V-MA- 16. Treat approximately 75% of non-native perennial 

communities to introduce shrubs; treatment would focus on areas 

adjacent to native shrubland communities. Natural succession of 

shrubs would be allowed throughout non-native perennial 

communities. 

UV-V-MA- 17. Restore approximately 67% of native grassland 

communities to native shrubland, focusing on areas that have been 

seeded with shrubs previously. Natural succession of shrubs would 

be allowed throughout native grassland communities. 

UV-V-MA- 18. Non-native understory and native shrubland 

communities would not be a focus for active restoration treatments. 

UV-V-MA- 19. Unvegetated areas would not be a focus for 

vegetation treatments. 

Additional vegetation treatments are discussed in the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

August 2010 2-52 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Upland Vegetation 

All VMAs 

UV-V-MA- 20. The first priority for implementing vegetation 

treatments would be treatments identified for VMA A to move toward 

native perennial vegetation; the second priority would be treatments 

identified for VMA C to reconnect and expand habitat for sagegrouse. Opportunities for treatments outside these priority areas 

would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

UV-V-MA- 21. Focus restoration treatments identified for each VMA 

on habitat for sage-grouse and other special status species.
 

UV-V-MA- 22. The toolbox to restore or treat upland vegetation 

communities would include:
 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; 

 Removal of grazing; and 

 Prescribed fire. 

Chemical treatments could only be used after all other methods have 

been exhausted. Targeted grazing would not be allowed. 

UV-V-MA- 23. Limit treatments in non-native perennial communities 

to methods with minimal soil disturbance, including but not limited to: 

 Broadcast seeding, 

 Chaining, and 

 Harrowing. 

UV-V-MA- 24. Use only native species or cultivars of native species 

in upland vegetation treatments.
 

UV-V-MA- 25. Create 40 ungrazed reference areas (193,000 acres) 

in annual, non-native perennial, non-native understory, native 

grassland, and native shrubland communities (Map 14). Each 

reference area would consist of an entire pasture and would be 

paired with an adjacent grazed area in a similar vegetation type and 

condition to monitor the effects of livestock grazing on a variety of 

plant communities. The absence of grazing would be the only 

difference between management of reference areas and that of 

adjacent areas with similar vegetation.
 

UV-V-MA- 26. Reseed all areas disturbed during project 

construction, maintenance, or removal with a mixture of native 

grasses, forbs, or shrubs that are appropriate to the ecological site.
 

UV-V-MA- 27. Assess biological soil crusts and manage them to 

move toward site potential by modifying levels and timing of BLM 

management activities and authorized uses during periods when soil
 

crusts are most vulnerable to damage.
 

2-53 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Riparian Areas and Wetlands 

2.3.5.2. Riparian Areas and Wetlands 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

RI-NA-O- 1. Maintain 1987 

condition of riparian habitat in 

MUAs 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 16; 

improve 44.4 miles of riparian 

habitat in MUAs 10, 11, 14, and 

15 (Map 4). 

Management Actions 

RI-NA-MA- 1. Management activities in riparian zones would be 

designed to maintain or improve riparian habitat condition. 

RI-NA-MA- 2. 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. 

RI-NA-MA- 3. In those areas where fish/riparian values are identified 

as high priority, all other management practices would be designed 

to accommodate those priority needs. 

RI-NA-MA- 4. Follow the guidelines outlined in the BMP manual of 

management and protection of western stream ecosystems 

(American Fisheries Society, 1982) in all activities including 

maintenance of roads, and other facilities. 

RI-NA-MA- 5. Install gap fencing in MUAs 10, 11, 12, 14, 15. 

RI-NA-MA- 6. In those instances where management systems alone 

cannot meet objectives for fisheries, riparian areas, or water 

availability, provisions for fencing or other means of exclusion would 

be utilized. 

RI-NA-MA- 7. Monitor and implement periodic rest or nonuse when 

these stream systems do not show signs of adequate recovery. 

RI-NA-MA- 8. Avoid construction activities that remove or destroy 

riparian vegetation and instream fish cover. 

RI-NA-MA- 9. Provide a riparian buffer zone of sufficient width (100 

to 300 feet minimum) to protect riparian vegetation, fisheries, and 

water quality as determined by an interdisciplinary team of resource 

specialists, which includes fisheries and wildlife specialists. Within 

the riparian buffer zone: 

 Limit new road construction that parallels streams (use BMPs 

when construction cannot be avoided). 

 Maintain full fire suppression. 

 Generally exclude spraying of herbicides and pesticides. 

 Generally exclude gravel extraction. 

RI-NA-MA- 10. Utilize a 1,000 foot (500 feet for each side) riparian 

buffer zone for the total exclusion of the following activities: 

 Oil and gas occupancy and/or surface disturbance. 

 Introduction of chemical toxicants as a result of construction, 

mining, or agriculture. 

August 2010 2-54 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Riparian Areas and Wetlands 


 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

RI-NA-MA- 11. Management actions within floodplains and wetlands 

would include measures to preserve, protect, and, if necessary, 

restore their natural functions. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

RI-CA-G- 1. Provide healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian areas, and associated aquatic habitats.
 

Objective 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Management Actions 

RI-CA-MA- 1. Create Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) around 

riparian areas and wetlands that contain or are tributaries to streams 

that contain special status species or their habitat to protect riparian 

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

follows: 

 Category 1 – Fish-bearing streams: The RCA consists of the 

stream and the area on either side of the stream. This area 

extends from the edges of the active channel to the top of the 

inner gorge, to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, to the 

outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or 300 feet slope distance 

(600 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever 

is greatest. 

	 Category 2 – Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams: 

The RCA consists of the stream and the area on either side of 

the stream. This area extends from the edges of the active 

channel to the top of the inner gorge, to the outer edges of the 

100-year floodplain, to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, 

or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet, including both sides of the 

stream channel), whichever is greatest. 

	 Category 3 – Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater 

than 1 acre: The RCA consists of the body of water or wetland 

and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, to the 

extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or 150 feet slope distance 

from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed 

ponds and reservoirs, or from the edge of the wetland, pond, or 

lake, whichever is greatest. 

	 Category 4 – Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, 

wetlands less than 1 acre, landslides, and landslide-prone areas: 

This category includes features with high variability in size and 

site-specific characteristics. The RCA includes the intermittent 

stream channel and the area to the top of the inner gorge, the 

intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer 

edges of the riparian vegetation, the area from the edges of the 

stream channel, wetland, or slide /landslide prone area, or 50 

feet slope distance, whichever is greatest. 

Activities can occur within RCAs with proper stipulations or 

mitigation, but must follow guidelines in the ARMS. 

RI-CA-MA- 2. Implement the ARMS (Appendix D) to achieve riparian 

management objectives within RCAs and other riparian areas and 

wetlands. Use the ARMS to develop and apply site-specific 

objectives and management guidelines for riparian areas and 

wetlands through implementation of activity plans. Use adaptive 

management as outlined in the ARMS to reduce impacts on riparian 

areas and wetlands from uses and activities. 

2-55 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Riparian Areas and Wetlands 

 

 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

RI-CA-MA- 3. Riparian management priorities would include the 

following: 

 Priority 1 streams – Streams rated as functioning-at-risk (FAR) 

or FAR with a downward trend (FAR-DN; 77 miles); 

management emphasis for Priority 1 streams would be on 

restoration. 

	 Priority 2 streams – Streams rated as FAR with an upward 

trend (FAR-UP) or non-functioning (NF; 63 miles); management 

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 on 

maintaining proper function. 

See management specific to Alternatives I through V for more 

detailed management priorities. 

RI-CA-MA- 4. Assess condition of wetlands associated with ponds 

and springs. 

RI-CA-MA- 5. Survey aquatic habitat (instream and riparian) and 

maintain updated aquatic habitat inventories. 

RI-CA-MA- 6. Consider authorizing activities or facilities where longterm benefits outweigh short-term impacts to riparian vegetation and 

fish habitat. 

RI-CA-MA- 7. Identify and remove nonessential human-made 

structures and objects that adversely impact the function of 

floodplains (e.g., unused bridge abutments, unused diversions, 

abandoned cars). 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

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

Priority 3 streams at PFC; 

improve 60 miles of Priority 1 

streams to achieve PFC; and 

improve the remaining 17 miles 

of Priority 1 streams and 63 

miles of Priority 2 streams to be 

moving toward PFC in the life of 

the plan. 

RI-I-O- 2. Manage wetlands to 

move toward PFC. 

Management Actions 

RI-I-MA- 1. Within the priorities identified in the ARMS (Appendix D), 

stream reaches with game fish or habitat suitable for game fish 

would be a high priority for restoration. 

RI-I-MA- 2. The toolbox for restoration of stream reaches would 

include, but not be limited to: 

 Road closures, 

 Culvert replacements, 

 Closing pastures, 

 Exclosure fencing, 

 Modification or removal of water developments, 

 Replanting of riparian areas, 

 Active herding, 

 Reintroduction of beaver, 

 Erosion control measures, 

 Riparian pastures, 

 Instream fish habitat improvements, and
 

 Modification or elimination of land uses that prevent attainment 

of aquatic and riparian management objectives. 

August 2010	 2-56 
 

 


 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Riparian Areas and Wetlands 

RI-I-MA- 3. Conduct multiple indicator surveys on riparian areas 

according to BLM policy. 

RI-I-MA- 4. Create 10 ungrazed riparian reference areas (3,000 

acres; Map 11). Each reference area would be paired with an 

adjacent grazed area in a similar vegetation type and condition to 

monitor the effects of livestock grazing on a variety of plant 

communities. The absence of grazing would be the only difference 

between management of reference areas and that of adjacent areas 

with similar vegetation. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

RI-II-O- 1. Maintain 85 miles of 

Priority 3 streams at PFC and 

improve the Priority 1 and 2 

streams to be moving toward 

PFC in the life of the plan. 

RI-II-O- 2. Manage wetlands to 

move toward PFC. 

Management Actions 

RI-II-MA- 1. Within the priorities identified in the ARMS (Appendix D), 

fish-bearing stream reaches, including reaches containing game and 

non-game fish, would be a high priority for restoration, according to 

the ARMS. 

RI-II-MA- 2. The toolbox for restoration of stream reaches would 

include, but not be limited to: 

 Road closures, 

 Culvert replacements, 

 Exclosure fencing, 

 Modification of water developments, 

 Replanting of riparian areas, 

 Active herding, 

 Erosion control measures, 

 Riparian pastures, 

 Instream fish habitat improvements, and
 

 Modification or elimination of land uses that prevent attainment 

of aquatic and riparian management objectives. 

The toolbox would not include: 

 Closing pastures, 

 Removal of water developments, or 

 Reintroduction of beaver. 

RI-II-MA- 3. Conduct multiple indicator surveys on riparian areas 

according to BLM policy. 

RI-II-MA- 4. Create 10 ungrazed riparian reference areas (1,000 

acres; Map 12). Each reference area would be paired with an 

adjacent grazed area in a similar vegetation type and condition to 

monitor the effects of livestock grazing on a variety of plant 

communities. The absence of grazing would be the only difference 

between management of reference areas and that of adjacent areas 

with similar vegetation. 

2-57 August 2010 

 

 

 
 
 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Riparian Areas and Wetlands 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

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; and 

improve the remaining 42 miles 

of Priority 2 streams to be 

moving toward PFC in the life of 

the plan. 

RI-III-O- 2. Manage wetlands to 

move toward PFC. 

Management Actions 

RI-III-MA- 1. Within the priorities identified in the ARMS (Appendix 

D), stream reaches/riparian areas with the potential to serve as fire 

breaks would be a high priority for restoration.
 

RI-III-MA- 2. The toolbox for restoration of stream reaches would 

include, but not be limited to: 

 Culvert replacements, 

 Closing pastures, 

 Exclosure fencing, 

 Modification of water developments, 

 Replanting of riparian areas, 

 Active herding, 

 Reintroduction of beaver, 

 Erosion control measures, 

 Riparian pastures, 

 Instream fish habitat improvements, and
 

 Modification or elimination of land uses that prevent attainment 

of aquatic and riparian management objectives. 

The toolbox would not include: 

 Removal of water developments, or 

 Road closures. 

RI-III-MA- 3. Conduct multiple indicator surveys on riparian areas 

according to BLM policy. 

RI-III-MA- 4. Create 10 ungrazed riparian reference areas (1,000 

acres; Map 13). Each reference area would be paired with an 

adjacent grazed area in a similar vegetation type and condition to 

monitor the effects of livestock grazing on a variety of plant 

communities. The absence of grazing would be the only difference 

between management of reference areas and that of adjacent areas 

with similar vegetation. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

August 2010 2-58 
 

 

 


 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Riparian Areas and Wetlands 

Objective 

RI-IV-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; and 

improve the remaining 42 miles 

of Priority 2 streams to be 

moving toward PFC in the life of 

the plan. 

RI-IV-O- 2. Manage wetlands to 

move toward PFC. 

Management Actions 

RI-IV-MA- 1. Within the priorities identified in the ARMS (Appendix 

D), stream reaches containing special status species or their habitat 

would be a high priority for restoration. 

RI-IV-MA- 2. The toolbox for restoration of stream reaches would 

include, but not be limited to: 

 Road closures, 

 Culvert replacements, 

 Closing pastures, 

 Exclosure fencing, 

 Modification or removal of water developments, 

 Replanting of riparian areas, 

 Active herding, 

 Reintroduction of beaver, 

 Erosion control measures, 

 Riparian pastures, 

 Instream fish habitat improvements, and
 

 Modification or elimination of land uses that prevent attainment 

of aquatic and riparian management objectives. 

RI-IV-MA- 3. Conduct multiple indicator surveys on riparian areas 

according to BLM policy. 

RI-IV-MA- 4. Create 10 ungrazed riparian reference areas (3,000 

acres; Map 11). Each reference area would be paired with an 

adjacent grazed area in a similar vegetation type and condition to 

monitor the effects of livestock grazing on a variety of plant 

communities. The absence of grazing would be the only difference 

between management of reference areas and that of adjacent areas 

with similar vegetation. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

RI-V-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; and 

improve the remaining 42 miles 

of Priority 2 streams to be 

moving toward PFC in the life of 

the plan. 

RI-V-O- 2. Manage wetlands to 

move toward PFC. 

Management Actions 

RI-V-MA- 1. Within the priorities identified in the ARMS (Appendix 

D), stream reaches containing special status species or their habitat 

would be a high priority for restoration. Active restoration would be 

limited to FAR-DN and NF reaches. 

RI-V-MA- 2. The toolbox for restoration of stream reaches would 

include, but not be limited to: 

 Road closures, 

 Culvert replacements, 

 Closing pastures, 

 Exclosure fencing, 

 Removal of water developments, 

 Replanting of riparian areas, 

 Active herding, 

 Riparian pastures, 

2-59 August 2010 
 

	 


 

	 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Fish 

 Instream fish habitat improvements, and 

 Modification or elimination of land uses that prevent attainment 

of aquatic and riparian management objectives. 

The toolbox would not include: 

 Modification of water developments, 

 Reintroduction of beaver, or 

 Erosion control measures. 

RI-V-MA- 3. Conduct multiple indicator surveys on riparian areas 

according to BLM policy, with emphasis on those areas that are 

rated FAR, FAR-DN, and NF or areas containing special status 

species. 

RI-V-MA- 4. Create six ungrazed riparian reference areas (23,000 

acres; Map 14). Each reference area would consist of an entire 

pasture and would be paired with an adjacent grazed area in a 

similar vegetation type and condition to monitor the effects of 

livestock grazing on a variety of plant communities. The absence of 

grazing would be the only difference between management of 

reference areas and that of adjacent areas with similar vegetation. 

2.3.6. Fish and Wildlife 

2.3.6.1. Fish 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

FI-NA-O- 1. Maintain 1987 

condition of fish habitat in MUAs 

7 and 13; improve 39.4 miles of 

fisheries habitat in MUAs 10, 11, 

12, and 15 (Map 4).
 

Management Actions 

No management actions stated. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

See goal for specific alternatives. 

Objective 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Management Actions 

FI-CA-MA- 1. Maintain, improve, or restore native fish habitat 

through actions identified for riparian areas, water resources, and 

special status species and through guidelines contained in the 

ARMS (Appendix D). Incorporate BMPs to maintain and improve 

habitat for native fish (Appendix E). 

FI-CA-MA- 2. Inventory and monitor fish habitat. Use adaptive 

management as outlined in the ARMS to minimize negative impacts 

to native fish habitat from uses and activities (Appendix D). 

August 2010	 2-60 
 


 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Fish 

FI-CA-MA- 3. Activities within riparian areas and wetlands would be 

designed to mitigate impacts to the riparian and aquatic habitat(s) 

through implementation of specific standards and guidelines in the 

ARMS (Appendix D). 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

FI-I-G- 1. Manage public lands to promote diverse, structured, resilient, and connected habitats for fish. 

Objective 

FI-I-O- 1. Maintain or improve 

streams so 70% of the miles of 

fish-bearing streams are 

properly functioning for fish. The 

remaining 30% of fish-bearing 

streams would be moving 

toward properly functioning for 

fish in the life of the plan. 

Management Actions 

See management actions in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

FI-II-G- 1. Manage public lands to maintain or improve habitat for fish. 

Objective 

FI-II-O- 1. Maintain or improve 

all fish-bearing streams so they 

remain or are moving toward 

properly functioning for fish in 

the life of the plan. 

Management Actions 

See management actions in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

FI-III-G- 1. Manage public lands to maintain habitat for fish while reducing wildland fire size and intensity. 

Objective 

FI-III-O- 1. Maintain or improve 

all fish-bearing streams so they 

remain or are moving toward 

properly functioning for fish in 

the life of the plan. 

Management Actions 

See management actions in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

FI-IV-G- 1. Manage public lands to promote diverse, structured, resilient, and connected habitats for fish.
 

2-61 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildlife 

Objective 

FI-IV-O- 1. Maintain or improve 

streams so 70% of the miles of 

fish-bearing streams and their 

perennial tributaries are properly 

functioning for fish. The 

remaining 30% of miles of fishbearing streams and their 

perennial tributaries are moving 

toward properly functioning for 

fish in the life of the plan. 

Management Actions 

See management actions in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

FI-V-G- 1. Manage public lands to promote diverse, structured, resilient, and connected habitats for fish. 

Objective 

FI-V-O- 1. Maintain or improve 

streams so 70% of the miles of 

fish-bearing streams and their 

perennial tributaries are properly 

functioning for fish. The 

remaining 30% of miles of fishbearing streams and their 

perennial tributaries are moving 

toward properly functioning for 

fish in the life of the plan. 

Management Actions 

See management actions in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

2.3.6.2. Wildlife 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objectives 

WI-NA-O- 1. Maintain present 

levels of upland game nesting 

and cover habitat in MUAs 6, 7, 

and 10 (Map 4). 

WI-NA-O- 2. Manage 3,990 

acres of the cheatgrass study 

area for curlews (MUA 7; Map 

4). 

WI-NA-O- 3. Manage all wildlife 

habitat within the planning area 

to provide a diversity of 

vegetation and habitats. 

Management Actions 

WI-NA-MA- 1. Priority for habitat management would be given to 

habitat for Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, and other 

BLM Sensitive species. 

WI-NA-MA- 2. Manage all ecological sites on mule deer, pronghorn, 

elk, bighorn sheep, and sage-grouse habitat in fair or poor ecological 

condition in 1987 for good ecological condition. 

WI-NA-MA- 3. Follow "Mule Deer Habitat Guidelines" contained in 

Technical Note 336 (Kerr, 1979) where applicable. Guidelines 

include: 

 Maintain a 60/40 ratio of forage area to cover area in range 

rehabilitation or manipulation projects; 

 Try to achieve a mosaic or mottled pattern of cover in prescribed 

burning and manipulation projects; and 

 Improve forage condition by establishing seedings or plantings of 

bitterbrush, four-wing saltbush or other palatable shrub species 

August 2010 2-62 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 

	 


 


 


 


 


 


 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Wildlife 

WI-NA-O- 4. Manage big game 

habitat to support 7,360 winter 

mule deer and 2,565 mule deer 

year-round across all MUAs; 

1,932 pronghorn in MUAs 7, 10, 

11, 12, 13, 15, and 16; and 364 

bighorn sheep in MUAs 10, 15, 

and 16 (Map 4). 

WI-NA-O- 5. Protect crucial 

winter big game habitat and 

bighorn sheep habitat in MUAs 

10 and 15, and improve 8,750 

acres of bighorn sheep and big 

game habitat by 2005 in MUAs 

11, 15, and 16 (Map 4). 

on crucial mule deer winter range that presently has less than 

30% palatable shrub composition by weight of the shrub 

component. 

WI-NA-MA- 4. On crucial mule deer and elk winter ranges that do
 

not have an adequate composition of early maturing grass, develop
 

small seedings of Siberian wheatgrass and Russian wildrye and 

other appropriate early maturing grasses to improve deer and elk 

nutrition in the early spring period.
 

WI-NA-MA- 5. Follow "Habitat Management Guides for the American
 

Pronghorn Antelope" contained in Technical Note 347 (Yoakum, 

1980) where applicable. Guidelines include: 

 Grazing systems designed with the concept of key plant species, 

preferred pronghorn forage species for forbs and shrubs would 

be included as key species; and 

 Vegetative manipulation projects would include mixtures of 

grasses, forbs and shrubs. 

WI-NA-MA- 6. Monitoring and coordination needs for elk are as 

follows: 

 Identify elk use patterns as they occur on BLM lands;
 

 Identify areas of cumulative use due to elk and livestock; 

 Monitor forage use to determine if overuse of plant communities
 

is occurring; and 

	 Coordinate elk management and the exchange of information 

with the livestock users in the area and other agencies including 

the Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, and IDFG. 

WI-NA-MA- 7. Areas managed as winter range are shown on Map 

19. 

WI-NA-MA- 8. Design vegetative manipulation projects to minimize 

impacts and improve wildlife habitat by including a variety of 

palatable shrubs, forbs and grass. 

WI-NA-MA- 9. Improve raptor habitat by requiring all new power 

lines in raptor areas to be constructed to electrocution-proof 

specification and that any problem lines be modified to be 

electrocution proof. 

WI-NA-MA- 10. Maintain the short-grass habitats occupied by longbilled curlew. 

WI-NA-MA- 11. Transfer of land within the curlew habitat area would 

not be allowed prior to the development of an agreement between 

IDFG and IDWR which identifies satisfactory mitigation measures to 

protect curlew habitat. 

WI-NA-MA- 12. Maintain size and configuration of Wildlife Tracts. 

Manage Wildlife Tracts according to Snake River Wildlife Tracts 

Habitat Management Plan (13,000 acres; Map 23). 

WI-NA-MA- 13. Install wildlife escape devices on all troughs and 

tanks. 

2-63 August 2010 

 


 


 


 


 


 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildlife 

WI-NA-MA- 14. Provide water in allotments during seasonal periods 

of need for wildlife. 

WI-NA-MA- 15. Incorporate wildlife provisions into all future fence 

proposals.
 

WI-NA-MA- 16. Schedule major construction and maintenance work 

in crucial wildlife habitats to avoid or minimize disturbance to wildlife. 

WI-NA-MA- 17. Restrict occupancy for oil and gas activities in crucial 

wildlife habitats as shown below. 

 December through April in mule deer winter range;
 

 December through April in pronghorn winter range;
 

 May through June in pronghorn fawning range; 

 Year round within 500 feet of riparian areas occupied by river 

otter; 

 Year round within essential nesting habitat for birds of prey; 

 Year round within 0.5 miles of heron rookeries; 

 February through June within 0.75 miles of golden eagle nests; 

 Mid March through June within 0.75 miles of long-billed curlew 

nests; 

 Mid March through June within 0.25 miles of Western burrowing 

owl nests; 

 Mid April through August within 0.75 miles of osprey nests; and 

 Year round within 500 feet of reservoirs, ponds, lakes, streams, 

wetland, marshes, and riparian areas for riparian-dependent 

species. 

Additional activities would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to 

determine the need for compliance with these recommendations. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

See goal for specific alternatives. 

Objectives 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Management Actions 

WI-CA-MA- 1. Maintain or improve habitat for priority wildlife species 

as specified in the Upland Vegetation section for each alternative 

and according to guidelines contained in relevant species 

management plans (plans in effect as of 2009 are listed in Appendix 

G). 

WI-CA-MA- 2. When making management decisions affecting big 

game, use the most current big game winter range map provided by 

IDFG and the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). Areas 

considered big game winter range in 2009 are shown on Map 19. 

WI-CA-MA- 3. Implement IDFG and NDOW guidelines to maintain or 

improve mule deer and pronghorn winter range when and where 

needed. 

WI-CA-MA- 4. Management specific to elk would not be 

implemented unless requested by IDFG or NDOW; management 

actions for elk are allowed consistent with habitat management for 

priority wildlife species. 

August 2010 2-64 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Wildlife 

WI-CA-MA- 5. Management of habitat for migratory birds identified in 

the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Species of 

Conservation Need, Intermountain West Joint Venture - Idaho, and 

Idaho Partners in Flight would emphasize avoiding or minimizing 

negative impacts and restoring and enhancing habitat quality to 

implement Executive Order 13186. Promote the maintenance and 

improvement of their habitat quantity and quality through the 

permitting process for all land use authorizations. Avoid, reduce, or 

mitigate adverse impacts on the habitats of migratory bird species of 

conservation concern to the extent feasible, and in a manner 

consistent with regional or statewide bird conservation priorities. 

WI-CA-MA- 6. Incorporate BMPs for wildlife into BLM management 

activities and authorized uses as appropriate (Appendix E). Specific 

BMPs would be determined at the project level. 

WI-CA-MA- 7. Install and properly maintain wildlife escape devices 

on all troughs and open tanks. 

WI-CA-MA- 8. Fence construction and maintenance would follow 

BLM policy for wildlife-friendly fences. 

WI-CA-MA- 9. Schedule construction and maintenance activities to 

avoid or minimize disturbance to the priority species and their habitat 

during their important seasonal periods (Appendix H). 

WI-CA-MA- 10. Schedule energy-related activities (e.g., exploration, 

development, and maintenance) to avoid or minimize disturbance to 

priority species and their habitat during important seasonal periods 

(Appendix H). 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

WI-I-G- 1. Manage public lands to promote diverse, structured, resilient, and connected habitats for 

wildlife. 

Objective 

WI-I-O- 1. Maintain or improve 

habitat for big game species by 

managing uses and activities 

and actively restoring annual, 

non-native perennial, and native 

communities. 

Management Actions 

WI-I-MA- 1. Mule deer and special status species, including bighorn 

sheep and sage-grouse, have the highest priority for habitat 

management; secondary priorities are pronghorn, chukar, and 

pheasant. 

Special status species management is discussed in the Special 

Status Species section. 

WI-I-MA- 2. Focus vegetation treatments for mule deer winter range 

areas as shown on Map 20. 

WI-I-MA- 3. Plant desirable browse species appropriate to site 

potential on big game winter range where browse was reduced by 

past wildland fires. Species may include, but not be limited to: 

winterfat, four-wing saltbush, bitterbrush, chokecherry, and 

serviceberry. 

2-65 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildlife 

WI-I-MA- 4. Reconfigure and expand Wildlife Tracts (from 13,000 

acres to 20,000 acres) to reduce conflicts with uses, to improve 

management efficiency of Wildlife Tracts and allotments, and to 

increase the average size of individual tracts (Map 23). Prepare a 

new plan for joint IDFG-BLM management of Wildlife Tracts through 

a public process and to obtain partners for projects to improve 

wildlife values. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

WI-II-G- 1. Manage public lands to maintain or improve habitat for wildlife. 

Objective 

WI-II-O- 1. Maintain or improve 

wildlife habitat in native 

communities while promoting 

commercial uses throughout the 

planning area. 

Management Actions 

WI-II-MA- 1. Sage-grouse and other special status species are 

priority species for habitat management. 

Special status species management is discussed in the Special 

Status Species section. 

WI-II-MA- 2. As part of ES&BAR, plant desirable browse species on 

big game winter range where browse was reduced by past wildland 

fires. Species may include, but not be limited to: winterfat, four-wing 

saltbush, bitterbrush, chokecherry, and serviceberry. 

WI-II-MA- 3. Remove areas from the Wildlife Tracts program that are 

difficult to access and manage and would otherwise be identified for 

disposal (from 13,000 acres to 10,000 acres; Map 23). Prepare a 

new plan for joint IDFG-BLM management of the remaining Wildlife 

Tracts (10,000 acres) through a public process and to obtain 

partners for projects to improve wildlife values. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

WI-III-G- 1. Manage public lands to maintain habitat for wildlife while reducing wildland fire size and 

intensity. 

Objective 

WI-III-O- 1. Maintain wildlife 

habitat in native communities 

while reducing wildland fire size 

and intensity throughout the 

planning area. 

Management Actions 

WI-III-MA- 1. Sage-grouse and other special status species are 

priority species for habitat management. 

Special status species management is discussed in the Special 

Status Species section. 

WI-III-MA- 2. Reconfigure Wildlife Tracts to reduce conflicts with 

uses, to improve management efficiency of Wildlife Tracts and 

allotments, and to increase the average size of individual tracts (from 

13,000 acres to 14,000 acres; Map 23). Prepare a new plan for joint 

IDFG-BLM management of Wildlife Tracts through a public process 

and to obtain partners for projects to improve wildlife values. 

August 2010 2-66 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Wildlife 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

WI-IV-G- 1. Manage public lands to promote diverse, structured, resilient, and connected habitats for 

wildlife. 

Objective 

WI-IV-O- 1. Maintain or improve 

wildlife habitat by managing 

uses and activities and actively 

restoring annual, non-native 

perennial, and native 

communities. 

Management Actions 

WI-IV-MA- 1. Sage-grouse, other special status species, mule deer, 

and pronghorn are priority species for habitat management. 

Special status species management is discussed in the Special 

Status Species section. 

WI-IV-MA- 2. Focus vegetation treatments for mule deer and 

pronghorn winter range on areas as shown on Map 20. 

WI-IV-MA- 3. Plant desirable browse species appropriate to site 

potential on big game winter range where browse was reduced by 

past wildland fires. Species may include, but not be limited to: winter 

fat, four-wing saltbush, bitterbrush, chokecherry, and serviceberry. 

WI-IV-MA- 4. Reconfigure Wildlife Tracts to reduce conflicts with 

uses, to improve management efficiency of Wildlife Tracts and 

allotments, and to increase the average size of individual tracts (from 

13,000 acres to 14,000 acres; Map 23). Prepare a new plan for joint 

IDFG-BLM management of Wildlife Tracts through a public process 

and to obtain partners for projects to improve wildlife values. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

WI-V-G- 1. Manage public lands to promote diverse, structured, resilient, and connected habitats for 

wildlife. 

Objective 

WI-V-O- 1. Maintain or improve 

wildlife habitat by managing 

uses and activities and actively 

restoring annual and non-native 

perennial communities toward 

historic vegetation communities. 

Management Actions 

WI-V-MA- 1. Sage-grouse and other special status species are 

priority species for habitat management. 

Special status species management is discussed in the Special 

Status Species section. 

WI-V-MA- 2. Reconfigure Wildlife Tracts to reduce conflicts with 

uses, to improve management efficiency of Wildlife Tracts and 

allotments, and to increase the average size of individual tracts (from 

13,000 acres to 14,000 acres; Map 23). Prepare a new plan for joint 

IDFG-BLM management of Wildlife Tracts through a public process 

and to obtain partners for projects to improve wildlife values. 

2-67 August 2010 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Special Status Species 

2.3.7. Special Status Species 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

SS-NA-O- 1. Protect and 

enhance Endangered, 

Threatened, and Sensitive 

species’ habitats in order to 

maintain or enhance 

populations within the planning 

area. Enhance, restore and/or 

maintain habitat conditions and 

availability for special status 

species and prevent all 

avoidable loss of habitat. 

Management Actions 

Management for All Special Status Species 

SS-NA-MA- 1. Work with IDFG to determine if Salmon Falls Creek 

Canyon contains possible bighorn sheep habitat. 

Management Related to Resource Uses 

SS-NA-MA- 2. Projects proposed in areas with known Endangered, 

Threatened, or Sensitive plants would give full consideration to 

protecting these species, including fencing if necessary. 

SS-NA-MA- 3. If a proposed action is predicted, through the 

environmental assessment, to have an adverse effect on 

Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive plants, the action would be 

foregone or redesigned to eliminate such adverse effects. 

SS-NA-MA- 4. Use adjustments to livestock use levels, grazing 

seasons, season of use, or other management techniques to protect 

plants. 

SS-NA-MA- 5. Allow no action to occur that would adversely affect 

the habitat of Endangered, Candidate, or Sensitive species in MUA 4 

(Map 4). 

Management for Special Status Species in Upland Areas 

SS-NA-MA- 6. Maintain present areas for sage-grouse nesting 

habitat in MUA 13, and improve sage-grouse nesting through 

seeding and rehabilitation in MUA 10 (Map 4). Where applicable, 

Guidelines for Habitat Protection in Sage Grouse Range (Guidelines 

for Habitat Protection in Sage Grouse Range, 1973) and Sage 

Grouse Management Practices (Western States Sage Grouse 

Committee, 1982) would be followed. Habitat Requirements and 

Management Recommendations for Sage Grouse (Call, 1979) would 

be followed where applicable, including: 

 Control work would not be allowed where live sagebrush cover is 

less than 20%; 

	 Treatment measures should be applied in irregular patterns 

using topography and other ecological considerations to 

minimize adverse effects to the sage-grouse resource; 

	 Where fire is used as a habitat management tool, it should be 

used in such manner as to result in a mosaic pattern of shrubs 

and open areas, with openings, optimally from 1 to 10 acres in 

size; 

	 Maintain the density of sagebrush canopy coverage at 20% to 

30% within nesting habitats and at least 20% in wintering 

habitats; 

August 2010	 2-68 
 

 

	 

	 


 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Special Status Species 

	 Control of sagebrush would not be considered in any area known 

to have supported important wintering populations of sagegrouse in the past 10 years; and 

	 Seed mixtures for range improvement projects and fire 

rehabilitation projects would include a mixture of grasses, forbs 

and shrubs that benefit sage-grouse. 

SS-NA-MA- 7. Improve sage-grouse brood rearing habitat where 

sagebrush canopy cover is greater than 20% by removing sagebrush 

in small irregular areas and then reseeding. 

SS-NA-MA- 8. Maintain a separation of use between cattle and 

bighorn sheep by not developing livestock water sources within 1 

mile of bighorn sheep habitat unless adverse impacts can be
 

mitigated. 

SS-NA-MA- 9. No conversion from cattle to sheep would be allowed 

in allotments containing bighorn sheep habitat, unless a satisfactory 

separation can be maintained by fences or topographic features. 

This separation would be agreed upon through consultation and 

coordination with IDFG or NDOW.
 

SS-NA-MA- 10. Manage human use within bighorn sheep habitat at 

levels that are not detrimental to the bighorn sheep population. 

SS-NA-MA- 11. Adverse habitat alteration would not be allowed 

within 0.25 miles of any burrowing owl nest, 0.75 miles of any 

ferruginous hawk, golden eagle or prairie falcon nest, or 1 mile of 

bighorn sheep habitat. 

SS-NA-MA- 12. Permit no adverse habitat alteration of potential 

bighorn sheep habitat. 

SS-NA-MA- 13. Restrict occupancy for oil and gas activities in 

crucial wildlife habitats as shown below.
 

 Year round in bighorn sheep habitat; 

 December through mid February in sage-grouse and Columbian 

sharp-tailed grouse (sharp-tailed grouse) winter range; 

 Mid February through June in sage-grouse and sharp-tailed 

grouse breeding grounds; 

 April through June in within 2 miles of leks in sage-grouse and 

sharp-tailed grouse nesting and brood rearing habitat; 

 Year round within 500 feet of occupied riparian areas for 

mountain quail; 

 December through March in bald eagle and peregrine falcon 

winter habitat; 

 Year round within 1 mile of bald eagle and peregrine falcon 

nests; 

 Mid March through June within 0.75 miles of ferruginous hawk 

and prairie falcon nests; and 

 Mid March through June within 0.25 miles of white-faced ibis 

nests. 

Additional activities would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to 

determine the need for compliance with these recommendations. 

2-69 August 2010 
	 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Special Status Species 

Management for Special Status Species in Riparian Areas, 

Wetlands, and Streams 

SS-NA-MA- 14. Protect the aquatic habitat of Sensitive and 

Candidate species in the Snake River below Lower Salmon Falls 

Dam. 

SS-NA-MA- 15. Restrict occupancy for oil and gas activities year 

round within 500 feet of streams occupied by Interior Columbia River 

redband trout (redband trout), white sturgeon, and Shoshone sculpin. 

Additional activities would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to 

determine the need for compliance with these recommendations. 

Management Common to the No Action and All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

See goals in Management Specific to the No Action Alternative and Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Management Actions 

SS-C-MA- 1. Follow conservation measures in biological opinions 

(BOs) and letters of concurrence. BOs and letters of concurrence in 

place as of 2009 can be found in Appendix D; Conservation 

measures can be updated, revised, or replaced through future 

consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

SS-CA-G- 1. Manage public lands to contribute to the conservation and recovery of sage-grouse and 

other special status species. 

Objective 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Management Actions 

Management for All Special Status Species 

SS-CA-MA- 1. Special status species management would apply to 

Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, and Proposed species (Type 1 

BLM Sensitive); other BLM Sensitive species (Types 2 through 4); 

and designated critical habitat; this includes plants, fish and other 

aquatic species, and wildlife. 

SS-CA-MA- 2. Special status species management would also apply 

to species that are newly listed or added to the BLM Sensitive 

species list and to newly designated critical habitat, as appropriate to 

that species. 

SS-CA-MA- 3. Special status species management would not apply 

to species that are removed from the BLM Sensitive species list. 

Those species would be managed according to any applicable 

delisting requirements, conservation strategies, IDFG or NDOW 

management guidance, and BLM guidance. 

SS-CA-MA- 4. Management of one special status species would 

take into account the needs of other special status species. 

August 2010	 2-70 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Special Status Species 

SS-CA-MA- 5. Follow conservation plans, agreements, and 

strategies for special status species; those in place in 2009 include 

the plans, agreements, and strategies found in Appendix G. 

SS-CA-MA- 6. Monitor special status species and their habitats, and 

maintain data on their populations, distribution, and habitats. Use 

adaptive management to reduce impacts to special status species 

and their habitats from uses and activities. 

Management Related to Resource Uses 

SS-CA-MA- 7. BLM management activities and authorized uses that 

would adversely affect Threatened or Endangered species or their 

habitat would not be allowed without consultation and mitigation; 

BLM management activities and authorized uses that would 

adversely affect other special status species or their habitat would 

not be allowed without mitigation. 

SS-CA-MA- 8. Activities related to leasable and salable mineral 

development should avoid special status species and their habitats. 

If this is not possible, leases and permits would include mitigation for 

any adverse effects on special status species and their habitats. 

SS-CA-MA- 9. Promote conservation and recovery of special status 

species through realty actions such as: 

 Conservation easements that protect or conserve special status 

species habitat, 

 Land acquisitions or exchanges that improve management of 

special status species, and 

 Acquisition of lands with a high value for special status species. 

SS-CA-MA- 10. New communication sites would not be located in 

special status species habitat unless impacts to special status 

species or their habitat can be mitigated. 

SS-CA-MA- 11. ROW construction and maintenance activities 

should avoid disturbing special status species during important 

seasonal periods (Appendix H). 

Additional management direction for BLM management activities and 

authorized and allowed uses in special status species habitat can be 

found in the Resource Uses sections. 

Management for Special Status Species in Upland Areas 

SS-CA-MA- 12. BLM guidelines for sage-grouse habitat 

management (e.g., 2006 Conservation Plan for the Greater Sagegrouse in Idaho, Owyhee County and Jarbidge Local Working Group 

Sage-grouse Plans) would be used for BLM management activities 

and authorized and allowed uses as appropriate. Sage-grouse would 

be an umbrella species for other special status sagebrush-obligate 

species. 

SS-CA-MA- 13. Manage native shrubland communities in a 

landscape context to ensure that the seasonal habitat needs of sagegrouse and other sagebrush-obligate species are met across the 

planning area, where site conditions are suitable. 

2-71 August 2010 

 


 


 


 


 

	 


 


 


 


 


 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Special Status Species 

SS-CA-MA- 14. Maintain or improve the habitat for special status 

species by protecting and restoring their habitat, controlling noxious 

weeds and invasive plants, and minimizing direct habitat 

disturbance. 

SS-CA-MA- 15. When designing seed mixes for vegetation 

treatments and surface-disturbing projects, consider the needs of 

special status species and their habitat in the project area. 

SS-CA-MA- 16. Use seeding methods that minimize impacts to 

special status species populations. 

SS-CA-MA- 17. Schedule livestock grazing to avoid pastures that 

contain bighorn sheep habitat during breeding, wintering, and 

lambing periods to minimize disturbance during these important 

seasonal periods. 

SS-CA-MA- 18. Manage for separation of domestic sheep and goats 

from bighorn sheep in both location and time to reduce the risk of 

disease transmission between domestic and bighorn sheep. 

SS-CA-MA- 19. Avoid locating new transmission and phone lines in 

native shrubland and native grassland communities to minimize 

impacts to sage-grouse. If a transmission or phone line project must 

be located in sage-grouse habitat, the project should incorporate 

measures to reduce impacts to sage-grouse, including but not limited 

to: 

 Burying lines, 

 Using devices to deter raptor perching, 

 Avoiding construction and maintenance during important 

seasonal periods for sage-grouse (Appendix H), or 

	 Off-site mitigation to restore or improve sage-grouse habitat in 

other areas in the planning area. 

Management for Special Status Species in Riparian Areas, 

Wetlands, and Streams 

SS-CA-MA- 20. Implement the ARMS (Appendix D) and other 

management actions in the Riparian Areas and Wetlands section to
 

maintain or improve habitat for special status fish and aquatic
 

invertebrates and other special status species dependent on riparian 

areas and wetlands.
 

SS-CA-MA- 21. Incorporate BMPs to maintain and improve habitat 

for special status fish and aquatic invertebrates (Appendix E). 

SS-CA-MA- 22. Identify and eliminate, where feasible, migration 

barriers to special status fish species movement. 

SS-CA-MA- 23. Identify and implement specific habitat improvement 

projects in redband trout habitat to reduce habitat fragmentation and 

promote their long-term recovery. Projects may include, but not be
 

limited to: 

 Replacing culverts, 

 Working with private landowners so diversions are not a barrier, 

 Screening diversions, and 

 Planting riparian vegetation.
 

August 2010 2-72 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Special Status Species 

SS-CA-MA- 24. Identify and implement specific habitat improvement 

projects for Columbia River Basin bull trout (bull trout) as identified in 

the Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment of Bull Trout (FWS, 2004). 

SS-CA-MA- 25. Work cooperatively with Federal and State 

agencies, private landowners, and companies to identify and mitigate 

threats to Snake River snails, white sturgeon, and Shoshone sculpin 

from BLM-managed lands. 

SS-CA-MA- 26. Work cooperatively with Federal and State agencies 

and private landowners to identify and mitigate threats to Bruneau 

hot springsnail from BLM-managed lands. 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

SS-I-O- 1. Maintain or improve 

the quality and quantity of 

habitat for sage-grouse and 

other special status species by 

managing public land activities 

to sustain or benefit those 

species. 

Management Actions 

Management for All Special Status Species 

SS-I-MA- 1. Where alternative management strategies would result 

in the same relative effect to a species, implement those strategies 

least harmful to other resource uses, where practical. 

SS-I-MA- 2. Support projects to identify and monitor pollinators of 

special status plants. 

SS-I-MA- 3. Evaluate special status plant habitat, and where it has 

been historically occupied, reintroduce special status plant species 

where practical. 

SS-I-MA- 4. Conduct habitat suitability evaluations for potential 

reintroductions of special status wildlife, fish, and aquatic 

invertebrates in cooperation with FWS, IDFG, NDOW, and other 

interested and affected parties. Work with FWS, IDFG, and NDOW 

on reintroductions as appropriate. 

Management Related to Resource Uses 

SS-I-MA- 5. Adjust livestock use levels, season of use, or other 

management techniques to maintain or enhance special status 

species and their habitat (refer to Appendices B, C, and F for 

guidelines). 

SS-I-MA- 6. Construct, maintain, modify, or remove range 

infrastructure and other facilities as necessary to maintain or 

enhance special status species and their habitat. 

Additional management direction for BLM management activities and 

authorized and allowed uses in special status species habitat can be 

found in the Resource Uses sections. 

Management for Special Status Species in Upland Areas 

SS-I-MA- 7. Implement management actions described in the Upland 

Vegetation section to maintain or improve habitat for sage-grouse 

and other special status species. Upland vegetation management to 

2-73 August 2010 
	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Special Status Species 

benefit sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate special status 

species includes but is not limited to: Restoring annual, non-native 

perennial, and non-native understory communities toward native; 

 Restoring native grassland communities to native shrublands; 

and 

	 Introducing forbs and late-seral grasses to native shrubland 

communities. 

See the Upland Vegetation section for more details. 

SS-I-MA- 8. BLM management activities and authorized uses within 

1 mile of known ferruginous hawk or prairie falcon nests would be 

designed to minimize impacts to their prey base and availability of 

nesting material from March through July. 

SS-I-MA- 9. Remove troughs within 1 mile of the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Canyon rims within bighorn sheep habitat, consistent with 

the Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review 

(IMP; BLM-H-8550-1) within WSAs. Relocate troughs more than 1 

mile from the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyon rims if the watering site 

is needed for livestock grazing, consistent with the IMP within WSAs. 

SS-I-MA- 10. Remove fences and corrals within 1 mile of the 

Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyon rims within bighorn sheep habitat, 

consistent with the IMP within WSAs, except fences for pasture and 

allotment boundaries or for other resource protection. 

SS-I-MA- 11. New troughs, reservoirs, permanent fences, and 

corrals would be located at least 1 mile from the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Canyon rims within bighorn sheep habitat. 

SS-I-MA- 12. Fences identified to protect resources would be 

allowed and would be designed to meet the needs of bighorn sheep. 

SS-I-MA- 13. Trailing of domestic sheep or goats would not be 

authorized in allotments within 9 miles of bighorn sheep habitat. 

SS-I-MA- 14. Conversions from cattle to domestic sheep and goats 

would not be allowed in allotments within 9 miles of bighorn sheep 

habitat. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

SS-II-O- 1. Maintain or improve 

the quality of habitat for sagegrouse and other special status 

species by managing public 

land activities to sustain or 

benefit those species. 

Management Actions 

Management for All Special Status Species 

SS-II-MA- 1. Where alternative management strategies would result 

in the same relative effect to a species, implement those strategies 

most beneficial to commodity uses, where practical. 

SS-II-MA- 2. Reintroductions of special status species would be 

limited to species listed under ESA as Threatened or Endangered 

and species that are Proposed or Candidates for listing under ESA. 

August 2010	 2-74 
 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources
 

Special Status Species
 

Management Related to Resource Uses 

SS-II-MA- 3. Adjust livestock use levels, season of use, or other 

management techniques to maintain or enhance special status 

species and their habitat (refer to Appendices B,C, and F for 

guidelines). 

SS-II-MA- 4. Construct, maintain, modify, or remove range 

infrastructure and other facilities as necessary to maintain special 

status species and their habitat. 

Additional management direction for BLM management activities and 

authorized and allowed uses in special status species habitat can be 

found in the Resource Uses sections. 

Management for Special Status Species in Upland Areas 

SS-II-MA- 5. Implement management actions described in the 

Upland Vegetation section to maintain or improve habitat for sagegrouse and other special status species. Upland vegetation 

management to benefit sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate 

special status species includes, but is not limited to: 

 Restoring native grassland communities to native shrublands, 

and 

 Introducing forbs and late-seral grasses to native shrubland 

communities. 

See the Upland Vegetation section for more details. 

SS-II-MA- 6. BLM management activities and authorized uses within 

0.25 miles of known ferruginous hawk or prairie falcon nests would 

be designed to minimize impacts to their prey base and availability of 

nesting material from March through July. 

SS-II-MA- 7. Keep existing troughs and reservoirs in bighorn sheep 

habitat, consistent with the IMP within WSAs. 

SS-II-MA- 8. Keep existing fences and corrals in bighorn sheep 

habitat, consistent with the IMP within WSAs. 

SS-II-MA- 9. New troughs, reservoirs, permanent fences, and corrals 

can be located within bighorn sheep habitat if they do not conflict 

with bighorn sheep. 

SS-II-MA- 10. Trailing of domestic sheep or goats through bighorn 

sheep habitat would follow BLM policy. 

SS-II-MA- 11. Conversions from cattle to domestic sheep or goats in 

allotments containing bighorn sheep habitat would follow BLM policy. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

2-75 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources 

Special Status Species 

Objective 

SS-III-O- 1. Maintain or improve 

the quality of habitat for sagegrouse and other special status 

species by managing public 

land activities to sustain or 

benefit those species. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Management Actions 

Management for All Special Status Species 

SS-III-MA- 1. Where alternative management strategies would result 

in the same relative effect to a species, implement those strategies 

most beneficial to fire suppression and prevention activities, where 

practical. 

SS-III-MA- 2. Reintroductions of special status species would be 

limited to species listed under ESA as Threatened or Endangered 

and species that are Proposed or Candidates for listing under ESA. 

Management Related to Resource Uses 

SS-III-MA- 3. Adjust livestock use levels, season of use, or other 

management techniques to maintain or enhance special status 

species and their habitat (refer to Appendices B,C, and F for 

guidelines). 

SS-III-MA- 4. Construct, maintain, modify, or remove range 

infrastructure and other facilities as necessary to maintain special 

status species and their habitat. 

Additional management direction for BLM management activities and 

authorized and allowed uses in special status species habitat can be 

found in the Resource Uses sections. 

Management for Special Status Species in Upland Areas 

SS-III-MA- 5. Implement management actions described in the 

Upland Vegetation section to maintain or improve habitat for sagegrouse and other special status species. Upland vegetation 

management to benefit sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate 

special status species includes, but is not limited to: 

 Introducing shrubs to native grassland communities, and 

 Protecting islands of sagebrush habitat through extensive fuel 

breaks. 

See the Upland Vegetation section for more details. 

SS-III-MA- 6. BLM management activities and authorized uses within 

1 mile of known ferruginous hawk or prairie falcon nests would be 

designed to minimize impacts to their prey base and availability of 

nesting material from March through July. 

SS-III-MA- 7. Keep existing troughs and reservoirs in bighorn sheep 

habitat, consistent with the IMP within WSAs. 

SS-III-MA- 8. Keep existing fences and corrals in bighorn sheep 

habitat, consistent with the IMP within WSAs. 

SS-III-MA- 9. New troughs, reservoirs, permanent fences, and 

corrals can be located within bighorn sheep habitat if they do not 

conflict with bighorn sheep. 

SS-III-MA- 10. Trailing of domestic sheep or goats through bighorn 

sheep habitat would follow BLM policy. 

SS-III-MA- 11. Conversions from cattle to domestic sheep or goats in 

allotments containing bighorn sheep habitat would follow BLM policy. 

August 2010 2-76 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Special Status Species 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

SS-IV-O- 1. Maintain or improve 

the quality and quantity of 

habitat for sage-grouse and 

other special status species by 

managing public land activities 

to sustain or benefit those 

species. 

Management Actions 

Management for All Special Status Species 

SS-IV-MA- 1. Where alternative management strategies would result 

in the same relative effect to a species, implement those strategies 

most beneficial to other resources, where practical. 

SS-IV-MA- 2. Support projects to identify and monitor pollinators of 

special status plants. 

SS-IV-MA- 3. Evaluate special status plant habitat, and where it has 

been historically occupied, reintroduce special status plant species 

where practical. 

SS-IV-MA- 4. Conduct habitat suitability evaluations for potential 

reintroductions of special status wildlife, fish, and aquatic 

invertebrates in cooperation with FWS, IDFG, NDOW, and other 

interested and affected parties. Work with FWS, IDFG, and NDOW 

on reintroductions as appropriate. 

Management Related to Resource Uses 

SS-IV-MA- 5. Adjust livestock use levels, season of use, or other 

management techniques to maintain or enhance special status 

species and their habitat (refer to Appendices B,C, and F for 

guidelines). 

SS-IV-MA- 6. Construct, maintain, modify, or remove range 

infrastructure and other facilities as necessary to maintain or 

enhance special status species and their habitat. 

Additional management direction for BLM management activities and 

authorized and allowed uses in special status species habitat can be 

found in the Resource Uses sections. 

Management for Special Status Species in Upland Areas 

SS-IV-MA- 7. Implement management actions described in the 

Upland Vegetation section to maintain or improve habitat for sagegrouse and other special status species. Upland vegetation 

management to benefit sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate 

special status species includes, but is not limited to: 

 Restoring annual, non-native perennial, and non-native 

understory communities toward native; 

 Restoring native grassland communities to native shrublands; 

and 

 Introducing forbs and late-seral grasses to native shrubland 

communities. 

See the Upland Vegetation section for more details. 

SS-IV-MA- 8. BLM management activities and authorized uses 

within 1 mile of known ferruginous hawk or prairie falcon nests would 

2-77 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Special Status Species 

be designed to minimize impacts to their prey base and availability of 

nesting material from March through July. 

SS-IV-MA- 9. Remove troughs and reservoirs within 1 mile of 

bighorn sheep habitat, consistent with the IMP within WSAs; relocate 

troughs and reservoirs more than 1 mile from bighorn sheep habitat 

if the watering site is needed for livestock grazing, consistent with the 

IMP within WSAs. 

SS-IV-MA- 10. Remove fences and corrals within 1 mile of bighorn 

sheep habitat, consistent with the IMP within WSAs, except fences 

for pasture and allotment boundaries or for other resource protection. 

SS-IV-MA- 11. New troughs, reservoirs, permanent fences, and 

corrals would be located at least 1 mile from bighorn sheep habitat. 

SS-IV-MA- 12. Fences identified to protect resources would be 

allowed and would be designed to meet the needs of bighorn sheep. 

SS-IV-MA- 13. Trailing of domestic sheep or goats would not be 

authorized in allotments containing bighorn sheep habitat. 

SS-IV-MA- 14. Conversions from cattle to domestic sheep or goats 

would not be allowed in allotments containing bighorn sheep habitat. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

SS-V-O- 1. Maintain or improve 

the quality and quantity of 

habitat for sage-grouse and 

other special status species by 

managing public land activities 

to sustain or benefit those 

species. 

Management Actions 

Management for All Special Status Species 

SS-V-MA- 1. Where alternative management strategies would result 

in the same relative effect to a species, implement the most passive 

strategies, where practical. 

SS-V-MA- 2. Support projects to identify and monitor pollinators of 

special status plants. 

SS-V-MA- 3. Evaluate special status plant habitat, and where it has 

been historically occupied, reintroduce special status plant species 

where practical. 

SS-V-MA- 4. Conduct habitat suitability evaluations for potential 

reintroductions of special status wildlife, fish, and aquatic 

invertebrates in cooperation with FWS, IDFG, NDOW, and other 

interested and affected parties. Work with FWS, IDFG, and NDOW 

on reintroductions as appropriate. 

Management Related to Resource Uses 

SS-V-MA- 5. Adjust livestock use levels, season of use, or other 

management techniques to maintain or enhance special status 

species and their habitat (refer to Appendices B, C, and F for 

guidelines). 

August 2010 2-78 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 

SS-V-MA- 6. Remove or modify range infrastructure and other 

facilities as necessary to maintain or enhance special status species 

and their habitat. 

Additional management direction for BLM management activities and 

authorized and allowed uses in special status species habitat can be 

found in the Resource Uses sections. 

Management for Special Status Species in Upland Areas 

SS-V-MA- 7. Implement management actions described in the 

Upland Vegetation section to maintain or improve habitat for sagegrouse and other special status species. Upland vegetation 

management to benefit sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate 

special status species includes, but is not limited to: 

 Restoring annual communities toward native, and 

 Introducing shrubs to non-native perennial communities and 

native grassland communities. 

See the Upland Vegetation section for more details. 

SS-V-MA- 8. BLM management activities and authorized uses within 

1 mile of known ferruginous hawk or prairie falcon nests would be 

designed to minimize impacts to their prey base and availability of 

nesting material from March through July. 

SS-V-MA- 9. Remove troughs and reservoirs within 1 mile of bighorn 

sheep habitat, consistent with the IMP within WSAs, relocate troughs 

and reservoirs more than 1 mile from bighorn sheep habitat if the 

watering site is needed for livestock grazing, consistent with the IMP 

within WSAs. 

SS-V-MA- 10. Remove fences and corrals within 1 mile of bighorn 

sheep habitat, consistent with the IMP within WSAs, except fences 

for pasture and allotment boundaries or for other resource protection. 

SS-V-MA- 11. New troughs, reservoirs, permanent fences, and 

corrals would be located at least 1 mile from bighorn sheep habitat. 

SS-V-MA- 12. Fences identified to protect resources would be 

allowed and would be designed to meet the needs of bighorn sheep. 

SS-V-MA- 13. Trailing of domestic sheep or goats would not be 

authorized in allotments within 9 miles of bighorn sheep habitat. 

SS-V-MA- 14. Conversions from cattle to domestic sheep and goats 

would not be allowed in allotments within 9 miles of bighorn sheep 

habitat. 

2.3.8. Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

2-79 August 2010 
 


 

Chapter 2: Resources 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 

Objective 

No objective stated. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Management Actions 

NW-NA-MA- 1. Control the spread of noxious weeds on public lands 

where possible, where economically feasible, and to the extent that 

funds are prioritized for that purpose. Poisonous or noxious plants 

would be controlled where spot infestations occur or where BLM 

would cooperate with other affected landowners in controlling 

infestations on relatives large areas. 

NW-NA-MA- 2. Consider alternatives including herbicide 

applications, plow and seed, burn and seed, livestock grazing 

strategies, and biological controls where weed control is warranted. 

Pursue coordination with adjoining landowners if appropriate. 

NW-NA-MA- 3. If herbicide application is selected as the preferred 

method of control through the environmental analysis process, 

application would be made through the Idaho State Director to the 

BLM Director in Washington DC. This application would indicate all 

pertinent data including chemicals, rate, and method of application 

and target plant species. Herbicide applications would be applied 

under the directions of a licensed pesticide applicator and every 

effort would be taken to assure public safety. 

NW-NA-MA- 4. Follow guidelines in BOs, Candidate Conservation 

Agreements (CCAs), management plans for ACECs and other 

special designations, and policy regarding specific herbicides and 

biological control. 

NW-NA-MA- 5. Work with County governments to monitor the 

location and spread of noxious weeds and to maintain up-to-date 

inventory records. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

NW-CA-G- 1. Manage public lands to prevent, eliminate, or control noxious weeds and invasive plants.
 

Objective Management Actions 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

NW-CA-MA- 1. Follow applicable laws, policy, and the most current 

vegetation treatment EIS as well as label instructions for the 

application of herbicides. In 2009, the vegetation treatment EIS is the 

September 2007 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 States. 

NW-CA-MA- 2. Inventory noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

NW-CA-MA- 3. Consult with the tribes on herbicide use to consider 

timing of projects and benefits and impacts to plants of importance to 

the tribes. 

NW-CA-MA- 4. Formulate methods of control in or near special 

status species habitat on a site- and species-specific basis to 

minimize impacts to special status species. Methods of control would 

comply with FWS consultation requirements. 

August 2010 2-80 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 

NW-CA-MA- 5. Incorporate BMPs for noxious weeds and invasive 

plants into BLM management activities and authorized uses as 

appropriate (Appendix E). 

NW-CA-MA- 6. Include site-specific stipulations in land use 

authorizations, permits, and leases to limit introduction and spread of 

noxious weeds. 

NW-CA-MA- 7. Collaborate with Federal agencies, State and County 

governments, non-governmental organizations, and individuals to 

establish a Jarbidge Cooperative Weed Management Area or other 

cooperative agreements for noxious weed and invasive plants 

management. 

Invasive plants in annual communities are addressed in the Upland 

Vegetation section. 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objectives 

Noxious Weeds 

NW-I-O- 1. Reduce the number 

of acres containing noxious 

weeds by at least 10%; reduce 

the number of noxious weed 

species present. 

Invasive Plants 

NW-I-O- 2. Reduce cover of 

invasive plants in native 

communities to less than 5%; 

reduce cover of invasive plants 

in non-native perennial and nonnative understory communities 

to less than10%. 

Management Actions 

NW-I-MA- 1. Treat areas containing noxious weeds and invasive 

plants to achieve objectives. Priority areas would include: 

 Special designations, 

 Motorized and recreational access points, 

 Riparian areas, 

 Special status species habitat, 

 Mule deer winter range, 

 Roadsides, and 

 Native plant communities.
 

NW-I-MA- 2. Focus control efforts on species with new or small 

infestations and species that have higher potential for resource 

impacts. Eradicate noxious weeds and invasive plants where 

practical. Focus treatments for large infestations on reducing the size 

of the infestation. 

NW-I-MA- 3. The toolbox for treating noxious weeds and invasive 

plants would include: 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; and 

 Targeted grazing. 

Prescribed fire would not be allowed. See the Livestock Grazing
 

section for more information on targeted grazing.
 

NW-I-MA- 4. Develop and implement activities to prevent the 

introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants on 

public lands. The toolbox for preventing introduction and spread of 

noxious weeds and invasive plants would include:
 

 Public outreach (e.g., kiosks, media, mailings, publications, 

brochures), 

 Wash stations, and 

2-81 August 2010 
 

	 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 


 


 


 


 

	 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 

	 Modifying uses to minimize new introductions and spread (e.g., 

closing roads, not authorizing SRPs in highly infested areas). 

NW-I-MA- 5. Use of certified weed-free forage, seed, and straw (as 

defined in the Idaho Noxious Weed Free Forage and Straw 

Certification Rules [IAC 02.06.31]) would be required for all BLM 

management activities and authorized and allowed uses. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objectives 

Noxious Weeds 

NW-II-O- 1. Reduce the number 

of acres containing noxious 

weeds by at least 10%; reduce 

the number of noxious weed 

species present. 

Invasive Plants 

NW-II-O- 2. Reduce cover of 

invasive plants in native 

communities to less than 10%; 

reduce cover of invasive plants 

in non-native perennial and nonnative understory communities 

to less than 15%. 

Management Actions 

NW-II-MA- 1. Treat areas containing noxious weeds and invasive 

plants to achieve objectives. Priority areas would include: 

 Riparian areas, 

 Special status species habitat, and 

 Native plant communities.
 

NW-II-MA- 2. Focus control efforts on species with new or small 

infestations, species that respond well to treatment, and species that
 

have higher potential for resource impacts. Eradicate noxious weeds 

and invasive plants where practical. Focus treatments for large 

infestations on reducing the size of the infestation.
 

NW-II-MA- 3. The toolbox for treating noxious weeds and invasive 

plants would include: 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; 

 Targeted grazing; and 

 Prescribed fire. 

Prescribed fire would not be allowed in native grassland or native 

shrubland communities. See the Livestock Grazing section for more 

information on targeted grazing. 

NW-II-MA- 4. Develop and implement activities to prevent the 

introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants on 

public lands. The toolbox for preventing introduction and spread of 

noxious weeds and invasive plants would include:
 

 Public outreach (e.g., kiosks, media, mailings, publications, 

brochures), and 

 Modifying uses to minimize new introductions and spread (e.g., 

closing roads). 

NW-II-MA- 5. Use of certified weed-free forage, seed, and straw (as 

defined in the Idaho Noxious Weed Free Forage and Straw 

Certification Rules [IAC 02.06.31]) would be recommended for all 

BLM management activities and authorized and allowed uses. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

August 2010	 2-82 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 
 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 

Objectives 

Noxious Weeds 

NW-III-O- 1. Manage uses and 

treat noxious weeds such that 

there is no net increase in the 

number of acres containing 

noxious weeds; reduce the 

number of noxious weed 

species present. 

Invasive Plants 

NW-III-O- 2. Reduce cover of 

invasive plants in native 

communities to less than 5%; 

reduce cover of invasive plants 

in non-native perennial and nonnative understory communities 

to less than 5%. 

Management Actions 

NW-III-MA- 1. Treat areas containing noxious weeds and invasive 

plants to achieve objectives. Priority areas would include: 

 Special designations, 

 Fuel breaks, 

 Areas with high wildland fire occurrence, 

 Areas around historic structures, 

 Roadsides, and 

 Special status species habitat. 

NW-III-MA- 2. Focus control efforts on species that decrease the fire 

return interval or contribute to high fuel loads. Eradicate noxious
 

weeds and invasive plants where practical. Focus treatments for 

large infestations on reducing the size of the infestation. 

NW-III-MA- 3. The toolbox for treating noxious weeds and invasive 

plants would include: 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; 

 Targeted grazing; and 

 Prescribed fire. 

See the Livestock Grazing section for more information on targeted
 

grazing.
 

NW-III-MA- 4. Develop and implement activities to prevent the 

introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants on 

public lands. The toolbox for preventing introduction and spread of 

noxious weeds and invasive plants would include:
 

 Public outreach (e.g., kiosks, media, mailings, publications, 

brochures), 

 Wash stations, and 

 Modifying uses to minimize new introductions and spread (e.g., 

quarantining livestock, closing pastures, closing roads, not 

authorizing SRPs in highly infested areas). 

NW-III-MA- 5. Use of certified weed-free forage, seed, and straw (as 

defined in the Idaho Noxious Weed Free Forage and Straw 

Certification Rules [IAC 02.06.31]) would be recommended for all 

BLM management activities and authorized and allowed uses. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objectives 

Noxious Weeds 

NW-IV-O- 1. Reduce the 

number of acres containing 

noxious weeds by at least 50%; 

reduce the number of noxious 

weed species present. 

Management Actions 

NW-IV-MA- 1. Treat areas containing noxious weeds and invasive 

plants to achieve objectives. Priority areas would include: 

 Special designations, 

 Riparian areas, 

 Special status species habitat, and 

 Native plant communities.
 

2-83 August 2010 
 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Chapter 2: Res ources 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 

Invasive Plants 

NW-IV-O- 2. Reduce cover of 

invasive plants in native 

communities to less than 5%; 

reduce cover of invasive plants 

in non-native perennial and nonnative understory communities 

to less than 10%. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

NW-IV-MA- 2. Focus control efforts on species with new or small 

infestations and species that have higher potential for resource 

impacts. Eradicate noxious weeds and invasive plants where 

practical. Focus treatments for large infestations on reducing the size 

of the infestation. 

NW-IV-MA- 3. The toolbox for treating noxious weeds and invasive 

plants would include: 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; 

 Targeted grazing; and 

 Prescribed fire. 

See the Livestock Grazing section for more information on targeted
 

grazing.
 

NW-IV-MA- 4. Develop and implement activities to prevent the 

introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants on 

public lands. The toolbox for preventing introduction and spread of 

noxious weeds and invasive plants would include:
 

 Public outreach (e.g., kiosks, media, mailings, publications, 

brochures), and 

 Modifying uses to minimize new introductions and spread (e.g., 

closing roads). 

NW-IV-MA- 5. Use of certified weed-free forage, seed, and straw (as 

defined in the Idaho Noxious Weed Free Forage and Straw 

Certification Rules [IAC 02.06.31]) would be required for all BLM 

management activities and authorized and allowed uses. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

Noxious Weeds 

NW-V-O- 1. Reduce the number 

of acres containing noxious 

weeds by at least 20%; reduce 

the number of noxious weed 

species present. 

Invasive Plants 

NW-V-O- 2. Reduce cover of 

invasive plants in native 

communities to less than 5%; 

reduce cover of invasive plants 

in non-native perennial and nonnative understory communities 

to less than 10%. 

Management Actions 

NW-V-MA- 1. Treat areas containing noxious weeds and invasive 

plants to achieve objectives. Priority areas would include: 

 Special designations, 

 Riparian areas, 

 Special status species habitat, and 

 Native plant communities.
 

NW-V-MA- 2. Focus control efforts on species with new or small 

infestations and species that have higher potential for resource 

impacts. Eradicate noxious weeds and invasive plants where 

practical. Focus treatment for large infestations on reducing the size
 

of the infestation. 

NW-V-MA- 3. The toolbox for treating noxious weeds and invasive 

plants would include: 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; 

 Removal of grazing; and 

 Prescribed fire. 

August 2010 2-84 
 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Wildland Fire Management 

Chemical treatments could only be used after all other methods have 

been exhausted. Target grazing would not be allowed. 

NW-V-MA- 4. Develop and implement activities to prevent the 

introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants on 

public lands. The toolbox for preventing introduction and spread of 

noxious weeds and invasive plants would include: 

 Public outreach (e.g., kiosks, media, mailings, publications, 

brochures), and 

	 Modifying uses to minimize new introductions and spread (e.g., 

quarantining livestock, closing pastures, closing roads). 

NW-V-MA- 5. Use of certified weed-free forage, seed, and straw (as 

defined in the Idaho Noxious Weed Free Forage and Straw 

Certification Rules [IAC 02.06.31]) would be required for all BLM 

management activities and authorized and allowed uses. 

2.3.9. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

2.3.9.1. Wildland Fire Management 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

No objective stated. 

Allocations 

WFM-NA-A- 1. Manage 1,374,000 acres for full suppression. 

Aggressively suppress all fires on or threatening public lands. 

Management Actions 

WFM-NA-MA- 1. Less than full suppression may occur when 

multiple fires ignite simultaneously. Priority would be given to fires 

threatening areas of highest value. 

WFM-NA-MA- 2. Revise and implement a Fire Management Plan 

(FMP). 

WFM-NA-MA- 3. Mechanical equipment would not be used on 

paleontological sites in MUA 4 and 6; in the canyon in MUA 14; 

WSAs areas, river canyons, or ACECs with special attention to 

bighorn sheep needs in MUA 10; and the Oregon NHT in MUA 4 and 

7 (Map 4). 

WFM-NA-MA- 4. Fire lines would not be allowed across the three 

paleontological sites found in MUA 4 or the Oregon NHT in MUAs 4 

and 7 (Map 4). 

WFM-NA-MA- 5. Extinguish fires with the least amount of surface 

disturbance possible. When direct attack is not feasible, the 

suppression strategy is to burn out from natural barriers and 

establish control points, such as roads. 

WFM-NA-MA- 6. Utilize surface disturbing equipment, such as 

bulldozers, only with management approval. The first priority is 

2-85 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildland Fire Management 

clearing of roads and second priority, when all other methods are 

exhausted, is construction of new control lines. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

WFM-CA-G- 1. Fire management strategies would result in firefighter and public safety and protection of 

property and natural and cultural resources, while considering suppression and rehabilitation costs. 

Objective 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Allocations 

WFM-CA-A- 1. No areas would be suitable for Wildland Fire Use 

(1,374,000 acres). 

Management Actions 

WFM-CA-MA- 1. All wildland fires, in Critical or Conditional 

Suppression Areas, would receive an Appropriate Management 

Response (AMR). AMR includes any action taken to meet resource 

objectives identified in RMPs/FMPs. AMR ranges across a spectrum 

of tactical operations (from monitoring to aggressive/intensive 

suppression actions). 

WFM-CA-MA- 2. Critical Suppression Areas represent highest 

suppression priority. The AMR in Critical Suppression Areas 

assumes suppression actions will be taken to reduce fire size and 

acres burned unless safety warrants alternative strategies. Wildland 

fire is generally not desired in these areas, with the exception of 

prescribed fire to be used for site preparation as described in the 

RMP. These areas will be geographically defined for each 

alternative. 

WFM-CA-MA- 3. Conditional Suppression Areas represent areas of 

lower suppression priority where suppression efforts would be 

adjusted based on resource values and fire’s desired role in the 

ecosystem. The AMR in Conditional Suppression Areas assumes 

suppression actions will be taken commensurate with the values at 

risk, and considering suppression costs. Wildland fire management 

strategies may be changed if fire danger is high or there will likely be 

undesired fire effects. Conditional suppression areas also represent 

areas where cost of suppression may exceed the value of resources 

to be protected as identified in the RMP. These areas will be 

geographically defined for each alternative. 

WFM-CA-MA- 4. Areas for Wildland Fire for Resource Benefit would 

be determined after the wildland fire has been contained or 

controlled. Areas where vegetation treatments were planned and 

analyzed in the NEPA process or those ecosystems found to “need 

more disturbance” through the FRCC process would be candidates 

for “benefit” fires. Post-fire site visits would be required to determine 

if fire effects actually experienced resulted in conditions that moved 

the area toward resource objectives. 

WFM-CA-MA- 5. Revise the FMP as required by policy to 

incorporate updated fire, vegetation, resource value, WUI, and fuels 

data. The FMP would be used to refine suppression, fuels treatment, 

August 2010 2-86 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Wildland Fire Management 

community assistance, and ES&BAR priorities. Consider priorities
 

outlined in the RMP and cooperators priorities in the FMP. 

WFM-CA-MA- 6. In addition to safety and resource concerns, 

consider fire suppression and rehabilitation costs when evaluating
 

fire suppression techniques. 

WFM-CA-MA- 7. Work collaboratively with the military to reduce the
 

risk of wildland fire, improve suppression logistics on military lands 

adjacent to public lands, and protect public lands from wildland fires 

originating on military lands. 

WFM-CA-MA- 8. Use techniques referenced in the ARMS for fire 

suppression in riparian areas (Appendix D).
 

WFM-CA-MA- 9. Incorporate BMPs for wildland and prescribed fire 

into BLM management activities and authorized uses as appropriate 

(Appendix E). 

WFM-CA-MA- 10. Foster the public's understanding of the role of fire 

in the ecosystem, hazards associated with living in the WUI, and 

wildland fire prevention and suppression activities through methods 

such as:
 

 Tracting door to door, 

 Using mass media, 

 Providing outreach to local groups, 

 Developing interpretive signs and kiosks, and 

 Participating in the County Wildfire Protection Plan process.
 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objectives 

WFM-I-O- 1. Strive to reduce 

average wildland fire size and 

number of human-caused fire 

starts within WUI. 

WFM-I-O- 2. Reduce acres 

burned in vegetation types 

outside WUI where more 

wildland fires have burned than 

desired/historic in order to 

enhance and sustain existing 

and historic uses of the planning 

area. 

Allocations 

WFM-I-A- 1. Critical Suppression Areas within the planning area 

would be:
 

 WUI;
 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge, Lower Bruneau Canyon, Middle Snake, and 

Salmon Falls Creek ACECs; and 

 Key sage-grouse habitat. 

The types of Critical Suppression Areas would remain the same 

throughout the life of the plan; however, the acres and specific 

locations for WUI and key sage-grouse habitat can be updated to 

reflect changing conditions. See Map 26 for the locations of these 

areas in 2009. 

WFM-I-A- 2. The remainder of the planning area would be a 

Conditional Suppression Area. 

Management Actions 

WFM-I-MA- 1. When multiple wildland fire ignitions occur in Critical 

Suppression Areas, based on the management priorities of 

Alternative I, the suppression priorities would be (in order of 

importance): 

2-87 August 2010 
 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildland Fire Management 

 VMA C 

 VMA B
 

 VMA D 

 VMA A
 

These priorities would also be used for general fire suppression 

management planning.
 

WFM-I-MA- 2. Within the perimeter of an active fire, protect 

unburned patches of native grassland and native shrubland 

communities from fire during wildland fire suppression activities. 

Patches of unburned annual and non-native perennial communities 

within the perimeter of an active fire would be allowed to burn.
 

WFM-I-MA- 3. Use Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) in: 

 WSAs;
 

 Oregon NHT;
 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge, Salmon Falls Creek, and Sand Point ACECs; 

 Bull trout habitat; 

 Slickspot peppergrass habitat; and 

 Other areas where appropriate to mitigate potential impacts of 

fire suppression. 

WFM-I-MA- 4. Improve water availability for fire suppression in high 

recreational use areas, in accordance with Idaho State Law 

regarding the appropriation and use of water. 

WFM-I-MA- 5. Design water developments for fire suppression to 

mitigate impacts to water resources. Water developments may 

include, but are not limited to: 

 Water storage tanks, 

 Draft sites,
 

 Hydrants off pipelines, and 

 Vehicle wash stations.
 

Water storage may also be increased by enlarging and filling existing 

stock and storage ponds.
 

WFM-I-MA- 6. Consistent with other resource objectives, implement 

measures to reduce response time for fire suppression activities
 

including, but not limited to: 

 Building new guard stations, 

 Improving roads, 

 Building new roads in areas with limited access, 

 Improving stream crossings, and 

 Developing better signage.
 

Tools to improve access would not include building new or improving 

existing airstrips or building helipads.
 

WFM-I-MA- 7. Transportation and travel restrictions may be imposed
 

to reduce risk of wildland fire during fire restrictions, as determined 

by an authorized officer; restrictions may include, but not be limited
 

to closing primitive roads, trails, and areas open to cross-country 

motorized vehicle use. Travel related to administrative uses and 

emergency services may continue during fire restrictions.
 

WFM-I-MA- 8. Dozer blading should not occur within 300 feet of 

playas to protect associated cultural resources.
 

August 2010 2-88 
 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Wildland Fire Management 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objectives 

WFM-II-O- 1. Strive to reduce 

average wildland fire size and 

number of human-caused fire 

starts within WUI. 

WFM-II-O- 2. Reduce acres 

burned in vegetation types 

outside WUI where more 

wildland fires have burned than 

desired/historic in order to 

facilitate commercial use of the 

planning area. 

Allocations 

WFM-II-A- 1. Critical Suppression Areas within the planning area 

would be: 

 WUI. 

The types of Critical Suppression Areas would remain the same 

throughout the life of the plan; however, the acres and specific 

locations for WUI can be updated to reflect changing conditions. See 

Map 27 for the locations of these areas in 2009. 

WFM-II-A- 2. The remainder of the planning area would be a 

Conditional Suppression Area. 

Management Actions 

WFM-II-MA- 1. When multiple wildland fire ignitions occur in Critical
 

Suppression Areas, based on the management priorities of 

Alternative II, the suppression priorities would be (in order of 

importance):
 

 VMA A
 

 VMA B
 

 VMA D 

 VMA C 

These priorities would also be used for general fire suppression 

management planning.
 

WFM-II-MA- 2. Within the perimeter of an active fire, protect 

unburned patches of native and non-native perennial communities 

from fire during wildland fire suppression activities. Patches of 

unburned annual communities within the perimeter of an active fire 

would be allowed to burn.
 

WFM-II-MA- 3. Use MIST in: 

 WSAs, 

 Oregon NHT,
 

 Bull trout habitat, and 

 Other areas where appropriate to mitigate potential impacts of 

fire suppression. 

WFM-II-MA- 4. In native plant communities and WUI, improve water 

availability for fire suppression, in accordance with Idaho State Law 

regarding the appropriation and use of water. 

WFM-II-MA- 5. Design water developments for fire suppression to 

mitigate impacts to water resources. Water developments may 

include, but are not limited to: 

 Water storage tanks, 

 Draft sites, and 

 Hydrants off pipelines. 

2-89 August 2010 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildland Fire Management 

Water storage may also be increased by enlarging and filling existing 

stock and storage ponds. Vehicle wash stations would not be 

developed. 

WFM-II-MA- 6. Consistent with resource use objectives, implement 

measures to reduce response time for fire suppression activities
 

including, but not limited to: 

 Building new guard stations, 

 Improving roads, 

 Building new roads in areas with limited access, 

 Improving stream crossings, and 

 Developing better signage.
 

Tools to improve access do not include building new or improving 

existing airstrips or building helipads.
 

WFM-II-MA- 7. Transportation and travel would not be restricted 

during fire restrictions.
 

WFM-II-MA- 8. Dozer blading should not occur within 150 feet of 

playas to protect associated cultural resources.
 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

WFM-III-O- 1. Strive to reduce 

average wildland fire size, 

number of human-caused fire 

starts, and number of acres 

burned within and outside WUI 

throughout the planning area. 

Allocations 

WFM-III-A- 1. Critical Suppression Areas within the planning area 

would be: 

 WUI, 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge and Salmon Falls Creek ACECs, and 

 Key sage-grouse habitat. 

The types of Critical Suppression Areas would remain the same 

throughout the life of the plan; however, the acres and specific 

locations for WUI and key sage-grouse habitat can be updated to 

reflect changing conditions. See Map 28 for the locations of these 

areas in 2009. 

WFM-III-A- 2. The remainder of the planning area would be a 

Conditional Suppression Area. 

Management Actions 

WFM-III-MA- 1. When multiple wildland fire ignitions occur in Critical 

Suppression Areas, based on the management priorities of 

Alternative III, the suppression priorities would be (in order of 

importance): 

 VMA B 

 VMA A 

 VMA C 

 VMA D 

These priorities would also be used for general fire suppression 

management planning. 

WFM-III-MA- 2. Within the perimeter of an active fire, protect 

unburned patches of native and non-native perennial communities 

August 2010 2-90 
 

 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 
 


 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Wildland Fire Management 

from fire during wildland fire suppression activities. Patches of 

unburned annual communities within the perimeter of an active fire 

would be allowed to burn. 

WFM-III-MA- 3. Use MIST in: 

 Salmon Falls Creek and Sand Point ACECs, and 

 On a case-by-case basis where they would not affect fire 

containment. 

WFM-III-MA- 4. 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. 

WFM-III-MA- 5. Design water developments for fire suppression to 

mitigate impacts to water resources. Water developments may 

include, but are not limited to: 

 New pipelines, 

 Water storage tanks, 

 Draft sites,
 

 Hydrants off pipelines, and 

 Vehicle wash stations. 

Water storage may also be increased by enlarging and filling existing 

stock and storage ponds.
 

WFM-III-MA- 6. Implement measures to reduce response time for 

fire suppression activities including, but not limited to: 

 Building new guard stations, 

 Building new or improving existing airstrips, 

 Building helipads, 

 Improving roads, 

 Building new roads in areas with limited access, 

 Improving stream crossings, and 

 Developing better signage.
 

WFM-III-MA- 7. Close primitive roads, trails, and areas open to 

cross-country motorized vehicle use during fire restrictions to reduce 

risk of wildland fire, as determined by an authorized officer. Travel 

related to BLM administrative uses and emergency services may 

continue during fire restrictions.
 

WFM-III-MA- 8. Authorized uses may be limited or prohibited to 

reduce risk of wildland fire as determined by the authorized officer.
 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objectives 

WFM-IV-O- 1. Strive to reduce 

average wildland fire size and 

number of human-caused fire 

starts within WUI. 

Allocations 

WFM-IV-A- 1. Critical Suppression Areas within the planning area
 

would be:
 

 WUI, 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge, Inside Desert, Jarbidge Foothills, and Lower 

Bruneau Canyon ACECs, and 

 Key sage-grouse habitat. 

2-91 August 2010 
 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildland Fire Management 

WFM-IV-O- 2. Reduce acres 

burned in vegetation types 

outside WUI where more 

wildland fires have burned than 

desired/historic in order to 

achieve resilient ecosystem 

structure and function. 

The types of Critical Suppression Areas will remain the same 

throughout the life of the plan; however, the acres and specific 

locations for WUI and key sage-grouse habitat can be updated to 

reflect changing conditions. See Maps 29 and 30 for the locations of 

these areas in 2009 for Alternatives IV-A and IV-B (the Preferred 

Alternative), respectively. 

WFM-IV-A- 2. The remainder of the planning area would be a 

Conditional Suppression Area. 

Management Actions 

WFM-IV-MA- 1. When multiple wildland fire ignitions occur in Critical 

Suppression Areas, based on the management priorities of 

Alternative IV, the suppression priorities would be (in order of 

importance):
 

 VMA C 

 VMA D 

 VMA B
 

 VMA A
 

These priorities would also be used for general fire suppression 

management planning.
 

WFM-IV-MA- 2. Within the perimeter of an active fire, protect 

unburned patches of native grassland and native shrubland 

communities from fire during wildland fire suppression activities. 

Patches of unburned annual and non-native perennial communities 

within the perimeter of an active fire would be allowed to burn.
 

WFM-IV-MA- 3. Use MIST in: 

 WSAs, 

 Oregon NHT,
 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge and Sand Point ACECs, 

 Bull trout habitat, 

 Slickspot peppergrass habitat, and 

 Other areas where appropriate to mitigate potential impacts of 

fire suppression. 

WFM-IV-MA- 4. Improve water availability for fire suppression 

throughout the planning area, in accordance with Idaho State Law 

regarding the appropriation and use of water. 

WFM-IV-MA- 5. Design water developments for fire suppression to 

mitigate impacts to water resources. Water developments are limited 

to hydrants off pipelines. Water storage may be increased by 

enlarging and filling stock and storage ponds.
 

WFM-IV-MA- 6. Consistent with other resource objectives, 

implement measures to reduce response time for fire suppression 

activities including, but not limited to: 

 Building new guard stations, 

 Improving roads, 

 Building new roads in areas with limited access, 

 Improving stream crossings, and 

 Developing better signage.
 

August 2010 2-92 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Wildland Fire Management 

Tools to improve access would not include building new or improving 

existing airstrips or building heliports. 

WFM-IV-MA- 7. Transportation and travel restrictions may be 

imposed to reduce risk of wildland fire during fire restrictions, as 

determined by an authorized officer; restrictions may include, but not 

be limited to closing primitive roads, trails, and areas open to crosscountry motorized vehicle use. Travel related to administrative uses 

and emergency services may continue during fire restrictions. 

WFM-IV-MA- 8. Authorized uses may be limited or prohibited to 

reduce risk of wildland fire as determined by the authorized officer. 

WFM-IV-MA- 9. Dozer blading should not occur within 300 feet of 

playas to protect associated cultural resources. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objectives 

WFM-V-O- 1. Strive to reduce 

average wildland fire size and 

number of human-caused fire 

starts within WUI. 

WFM-V-O- 2. Reduce acres 

burned in vegetation types 

outside WUI where more 

wildland fires have burned than 

in the Historic Fire Regime 

(HFR). 

Allocations 

WFM-V-A- 1. Critical Suppression Areas within the planning area 

would be:
 

 WUI,
 

 Lower Bruneau Canyon, Middle Snake, and Sagebrush Sea 

ACECs; and 

 Key sage-grouse habitat. 

The types of Critical Suppression Areas would remain the same 

throughout the life of the plan; however, the acres and specific 

locations for WUI and key sage-grouse habitat can be updated to 

reflect changing conditions. See Map 31 for the locations of these 

areas in 2009. 

WFM-V-A- 2. The remainder of the planning area would be a 

Conditional Suppression Area. 

Management Actions 

WFM-V-MA- 1. When multiple wildland fire ignitions occur in Critical 

Suppression Areas, based on the management priorities of 

Alternative V, the suppression priorities would be (in order of 

importance): 

 VMA C 

 VMA B 

 VMA D 

 VMA A 

These priorities would also be used for general fire suppression 

management planning. 

WFM-V-MA- 2. Within the perimeter of an active fire, protect 

unburned patches of native grassland and native shrubland 

communities from fire during wildland fire suppression activities. 

Patches of unburned annual and non-native perennial communities 

within the perimeter of an active fire would be allowed to burn. 

2-93 August 2010 
 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Fuels and ES&BAR 

WFM-V-MA- 3. Use MIST in: 

 WSAs, 

 Oregon NHT,
 

 Sand Point ACEC, 

 Bull trout habitat, 

 Slickspot peppergrass habitat, and 

 Other areas where appropriate to mitigate potential impacts of 

fire suppression. 

WFM-V-MA- 4. Maintain water availability for fire suppression at 

2009 levels.
 

WFM-V-MA- 5. Consistent with other resource objectives, implement 

measures to reduce response time for fire suppression activities
 

including, but not limited to: 

 Improving roads, 

 Improving stream crossings, and 

 Developing better signage.
 

Tools to improve access do not include building new guard stations, 

building new or improving existing airstrips, building helipads, or 

building new roads in areas with limited access.
 

WFM-V-MA- 6. Transportation and travel restrictions may be 

imposed to reduce risk of wildland fire during fire restrictions, as 

determined by an authorized officer; restrictions may include, but not 

be limited to closing primitive roads, trails, and areas open to crosscountry motorized vehicle use. Travel related to administrative uses 

and emergency services may continue during fire restrictions.
 

WFM-V-MA- 7. Authorized uses may be limited or prohibited to 

reduce risk of wildland fire as determined by the authorized officer.
 

WFM-V-MA- 8. Dozer blading should not occur within 300 feet of 

playas to protect associated cultural resources. 

2.3.9.2. Fuels and Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation 

(ES&BAR) 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objectives 

Fuels 

No objective stated.	 

Management Actions 

Fuels 

FE-NA-MA- 1. Cooperate with adjacent landowners on a case-bycase basis to reduce fire hazard where efforts are cost effective and 

the results will benefit BLM’s fire management program. Cooperative 

efforts may range from consulting with private landowners on hazard 

reduction plans, to development of cooperative agreements and 

performance of hazard reduction. 

FE-NA-MA- 2. The following fuels reduction actions and procedures 

would be applied in all MUAs: 

August 2010	 2-94 
Chapter 2: Resources 

Fuels and ES&BAR 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

	 Prescribed burns may be reduced, postponed, or cancelled in 

areas where they, in combination with recent burns, would cause 

significant cumulative impacts to wildlife or watershed conditions; 

	 A fire fuels break plan would be developed as part of a fire 

activity plan. 

ES&BAR 

FE-NA-O- 1. Rehabilitate public 

lands affected by wildland fires 

to accomplish multiple use 

objectives and designed to 

reduce fire size. 

ES&BAR 

FE-NA-MA- 3. The following rehabilitation actions would be applied 

across all MUAs: 

	 Rehabilitation of areas, particularly large areas, that have a high 

potential for fires or have a high frequency of fires, will utilize 

irregular buffer strips with seed mixtures that are fire resistant 

and/or meet watershed protection, wildlife, and riparian 

objectives. These buffer strips will receive first priority for 

seeding prior to reseeding the rest of the burned area. 

	 In areas where the RMP goal/objective is to return the area to an 

improved ecological condition, 10% to 25% of the wildland fire 

burn area would use seed mixtures to allow this objective to be 

met; 

	 All grazing licenses issued that included areas recently burned 

and/or seeded areas would include a statement concerning the 

amount of rest needed in the seedings or burn area. Normally, 

two years of rest would be necessary to protect these areas. 

This rested area may include remnant stands of desirable 

species that survived the fire; and 

	 Seedings would include appropriate seed mixtures to replace 

wildlife habitat that is burned. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

FE-CA-G- 1. Reduce fire hazard to WUI.
 

Objectives 

Fuels 

FE-CA-O- 1. Manage plant 

communities within WUI to 

reduce Relative Risk Rating as 

identified in the 2007 Idaho 

Interagency Assessment of 

Wildland Fire Risk to 

Communities. 

Management Actions 

Fuels 

FE-CA-MA- 1. Update FRCC analysis for the planning area when 

20% of the planning area has been disturbed by wildland fires or 

treated by fuels projects since the previous FRCC analysis was 

completed or as needed. 

FE-CA-MA- 2. Progress towards FRCC objectives would be 

achieved through actions and guidelines specified in the Upland 

Vegetation, Riparian Areas and Wetlands, Noxious Weeds and 

Invasive Plants, and Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

sections. 

FE-CA-MA- 3. Fuels treatments in riparian areas would follow the 

guidelines in the ARMS (Appendix D). 

FE-CA-MA- 4. Coordinate fuels treatments with adjacent landowners 

and agencies through County Wildfire Protection Plans or other 

methods. 

FE-CA-MA- 5. Rest fuels treatment areas from uses, including but 

not limited to livestock and wild horse grazing and recreational use, 

2-95 August 2010 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Fuels and ES&BAR 

until treatment objectives are met and are predicted to be 

sustainable. This guideline would not apply to uses that do not 

conflict with the treatment objectives. 

FE-CA-MA- 6. Assess proposed vegetation treatments in 

consultation with the tribes and SHPO for their potential to affect 

cultural resources. Where previous inventory has been sufficient to 

identify vulnerable cultural resources, no inventory should be 

needed; however, where adequate inventory is lacking, inventory of 

the area as determined in consultation with the SHPO would be 

conducted. 

ES&BAR 

FE-CA-MA- 7. Use the full range of treatment options available to 

meet ES&BAR objectives, including, but not limited to: 

 Mechanical treatments, 

 Drill or broadcast seeding treatments, 

 Chemical treatments, 

 Seedling transplants, and 

 Erosion control structures.
 

FE-CA-MA- 8. Develop a Programmatic ES&BAR Plan and update 

as needed to address specific treatment options. 

FE-CA-MA- 9. Use seed mixes that would help stabilize soils and 

achieve objectives in the Upland Vegetation, Riparian Areas and 

Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife, and Special Status Species sections.
 

FE-CA-MA- 10. Use seed drilling equipment, tools, or techniques 

that minimize soil disturbance and place seed at the correct depth.
 

FE-CA-MA- 11. Rest burned areas from uses, including but not 

limited to livestock and wild horse grazing and recreational use, until 

ES&BAR objectives are met and are predicted to be sustainable or if 

the treatment is determined to be unsuccessful. This guideline would 

not apply to uses that do not conflict with the treatment objectives. 

FE-CA-MA- 12. Consider emergency closures in areas open to
 

cross-country motorized vehicle use when necessary for ES&BAR 

efforts.
 

ES&BAR 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

FE-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. 

Objectives 

Fuels 

FE-I-O- 1. Manage plant 

communities outside WUI to 

move toward FRCC 1. 

Management Actions 

Fuels 

FE-I-MA- 1. Implement fuels treatments to reduce fuel loads with 

consideration for other resource and resource use objectives. 

FE-I-MA- 2. Fuels treatments in WUI would include fuels reduction 

treatments and fuel breaks. Fuels treatments in WUI would focus on 

August 2010 2-96 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Fuels and ES&BAR 

FE-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. 

areas with high and high/moderate Relative Risk Ratings in the 

northern portion of the planning area.
 

FE-I-MA- 3. Fuels treatments outside WUI would include: 

 Restoration, 

 Fuel breaks, and 

 Noxious weed and invasive plant treatments. 

FE-I-MA- 4. The toolbox for fuels treatments would include:
 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; and 

 Targeted grazing. 

Prescribed fire would not be allowed. See the Livestock Grazing
 

section for more information on targeted grazing.
 

FE-I-MA- 5. Fuels treatments would use native and non-native 

species.
 

FE-I-MA- 6. Upland vegetation management related to fuels 

treatments, includes but is not limited to: 

 Converting annual communities to native or non-native 

perennial, 

 Restoring non-native perennial and non-native understory 

communities toward native, 

 Restoring native grassland communities to native shrublands, 

and 

 Introducing forbs and late-seral grasses to native shrubland 

communities. 

See the Upland Vegetation section for more details. 

FE-I-MA- 7. Outside SRMAs, fuel breaks would follow disturbance 

corridors or would protect restoration and ES&BAR treatments; fuel 

breaks for SRMAs could be used to protect adjacent areas, protect 

facilities, and protect high-use areas. Construct fuel breaks 

consistent with the Upland Vegetation section. 

FE-I-MA- 8. Noxious weed and invasive plants management related 

to fuels treatments includes measures for treating and preventing 

noxious weeds and invasive plants; see the Noxious Weeds and 

Invasive Plants section for more details. 

ES&BAR 

FE-I-O- 3. Rehabilitate and 

stabilize areas to help stabilize 

soils, promote natural recovery, 

and establish pre-fire or historic 

vegetation communities. 

ES&BAR 

FE-I-MA- 9. Consider using temporary fences on a case-by-case 

basis to protect burned plant communities and to allow for uses in 

pastures with burned plant communities. Temporary fences may only 

be considered when there are at least 2,000 unburned acres in the 

pasture. Reconstruction of fire-damaged permanent facilities on 

BLM-managed lands would follow BLM policy. 

FE-I-MA- 10. When planning temporary fences, consider the size of 

the pasture, the amount burned, the amount of pasture unaffected by 

rehabilitation, resource concerns, location of water, and expense. 

FFE-I-MA- 11. Temporary fences would be removed once ES&BAR 

objectives have been met. 

2-97 August 2010 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Fuels and ES&BAR 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

FE-II-G- 1. Manage vegetation communities outside WUI to maintain or restore their fire regimes and 

mosaic of successional classes to within their historic range. 

Objectives 

Fuels 

FE-II-O- 1. Manage native plant 

communities outside WUI, 

excluding Sandberg/non-native 

areas, to move toward FRCC 1 

and manage non-native plant 

communities and 

Sandberg/non-native areas for 

commodity use, which may not 

be toward FRCC 1. 

FE-II-O- 2. Implement fuels 

treatments to protect Critical 

Suppression Areas; limit the 

spread, size, and intensity of 

wildland fire; and maintain or 

improve vegetation. 

Management Actions 

Fuels 

FE-II-MA- 1. Implement fuels treatments to reduce fuel loads with 

consideration for other resource and resource use objectives.
 

FE-II-MA- 2. Fuels treatments in WUI would include fuels reduction 

treatments and fuel breaks. 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.
 

FE-II-MA- 3. Fuels treatments outside WUI would include: 

 Restoration, 

 Fuel breaks,
 

 Landscape-scale fuels reduction, and 

 Noxious weed and invasive plant treatments. 

Many of these are described in the Upland Vegetation and Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants sections.
 

FE-II-MA- 4. The toolbox for fuels treatments would include:
 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; 

 Targeted grazing; and 

 Prescribed fire. 

Prescribed fire would not be allowed in native grassland or native 

shrubland communities. See the Livestock Grazing section for more 

information on targeted grazing. 

FE-II-MA- 5. Fuels treatments would use primarily non-native 

species; fire-tolerant species would also be used, primarily in annual 

communities. 

FE-II-MA- 6. Upland vegetation management related to fuels 

treatments includes, but is not limited to: 

 Converting annual communities to non-native perennial, 

 Restoring native grassland communities to native shrublands, 

and 

 Introducing forbs and late-seral grasses to native shrubland 

communities. 

See the Upland Vegetation section for more details. 

FE-II-MA- 7. Fuel breaks would focus on protecting commercial 

facilities; fuel breaks would also be placed in non-native communities 

to protect native communities. Construct fuel breaks consistent with 

the Upland Vegetation section. 

FE-II-MA- 8. Landscape-scale fuels reduction would occur primarily 

through increased allocation of vegetation for permitted livestock 

August 2010 2-98 
Chapter 2: Resources 

Fuels and ES&BAR 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

grazing and through increased livestock grazing utilization. See the 

Livestock Grazing section. 

FE-II-MA- 9. Noxious weed and invasive plants management related 

to fuels treatments includes measures for treating and preventing 

noxious weeds and invasive plants; see the Noxious Weeds and 

Invasive Plants section for more details. 

ES&BAR 

FE-II-O- 3. Rehabilitate and 

stabilize areas to help stabilize 

soils, promote natural recovery, 

and establish pre-fire or historic 

vegetation communities. 

ES&BAR 

FE-II-MA- 10. Consider using temporary fences on a case-by-case 

basis to protect burned plant communities and to allow for 

commercial uses. Reconstruction of fire-damaged permanent 

facilities on BLM-managed lands would follow BLM policy. 

FE-II-MA- 11. When planning temporary fences, consider the size of 

the pasture, the amount burned, the amount of pasture unaffected by 

rehabilitation, resource concerns, location of water, grazing 

management efficiency, and expense. 

FE-II-MA- 12. With NEPA analysis, temporary fences may become 

permanent if they enhance the management of the burned area; 

these would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

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

Objectives 

Fuels 

FE-III-O- 1. Manage native plant 

communities outside WUI to 

move toward FRCC 1. Manage 

non-native plant communities to 

reduce wildland fire size and 

intensity, which may not be 

toward FRCC 1. 

FE-III-O- 2. Implement fuels 

treatments to protect Critical 

Suppression Areas and limit the 

spread, size, and intensity of 

wildland fire. 

Management Actions 

Fuels 

FE-III-MA- 1. Implement fuels treatments to reduce fuel loads as 

appropriate to reduce wildland fire size and intensity. 

FE-III-MA- 2. Fuels treatments in WUI would include fuels reduction 

treatments and fuel breaks. 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. 

FE-III-MA- 3. Fuels treatments outside WUI would include: 

 Restoration, 

 Fuel breaks,
 

 Landscape-scale fuels reduction, and 

 Noxious weed and invasive plant treatments. 

Many of these are described in the Upland Vegetation and Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants sections.
 

FE-III-MA- 4. The toolbox for fuels treatments would include:
 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; 

 Targeted grazing; and 

 Prescribed fire. 

See the Livestock Grazing section for more information on targeted
 

grazing.
 

2-99 August 2010 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Chapter 2: Resources 

Fuels and ES&BAR 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

FE-III-MA- 5. Fuels treatments may use both native and non-native
 

species, with fire-tolerant and fire-resistant species having a high 

priority. 

FE-III-MA- 6. Upland vegetation management related to fuels 

treatments includes, but is not limited to: 

 Converting annual communities to non-native perennial, 

 Introducing shrubs to native grassland communities, and 

 Creating extensive unvegetated or type-converted fuel breaks.
 

See the Upland Vegetation section for more details.
 

FE-III-MA- 7. 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. Construct fuel breaks consistent with the Upland 

Vegetation section.
 

FE-III-MA- 8. 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. See the Livestock Grazing section.
 

FE-III-MA- 9. Noxious weed and invasive plants management related 

to fuels treatments includes measures for treating and preventing
 

noxious weeds and invasive plants; see the Noxious Weeds and 

Invasive Plants section for more details.
 

ES&BAR 

FE-III-O- 3. Rehabilitate and 

stabilize areas to help stabilize 

soils, promote natural recovery, 

and establish fire-tolerant 

vegetation communities. 

ES&BAR 

FE-III-MA- 10. Consider using temporary fences on a case-by-case 

basis to protect burned plant communities. Reconstruction of firedamaged permanent facilities on BLM-managed lands would follow 

BLM policy. 

FE-III-MA- 11. When planning temporary fences, consider the size of 

the pasture, the amount burned, the amount of pasture unaffected by 

rehabilitation, resource concerns, location of water, grazing 

management efficiency, and expense. 

FE-III-MA- 12. Temporary fences would be removed once ES&BAR 

objectives have been met. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

FE-IV-G- 1. Manage vegetation communities outside WUI to maintain or restore their fire regimes and 

mosaic of successional classes to within their historic range. 

Objectives 

Fuels 

FE-IV-O- 1. Manage plant 

communities outside WUI to 

move toward FRCC 1.

Management Actions 

Fuels 

FE-IV-MA- 1. Implement fuels treatments to reduce fuel loads with 

consideration for other resource objectives. 

FE-IV-MA- 2. Fuels treatments in WUI would include fuels reduction 

treatments and fuel breaks. Fuels treatments in WUI would focus on 

August 2010 2-100 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Fuels and ES&BAR 

FE-IV-O- 2. Implement fuels 

treatments to protect Critical 

Suppression Areas; limit the 

spread, size, and intensity of 

wildland fire; and maintain or 

improve vegetation. 

areas with high and high/moderate Relative Risk Ratings in the 

northern portion of the planning area.
 

FE-IV-MA- 3. Fuels treatments outside WUI would include: 

 Restoration, 

 Fuel breaks, and 

 Noxious weed and invasive plant treatments. 

Many of these are described in the Upland Vegetation and Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants sections.
 

FE-IV-MA- 4. The toolbox to restore or treat upland vegetation 

communities would include:
 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; 

 Targeted grazing; and 

 Prescribed fire. 

See the Livestock Grazing section for more information on targeted
 

grazing.
 

FE-IV-MA- 5. Fuels treatments would use native and non-native 

species.
 

FE-IV-MA- 6. Upland vegetation management related to fuels 

treatments includes, but is not limited to: 

 Restoring annual, non-native perennial, and non-native 

understory communities toward native; 

 Restoring native grassland communities to native shrublands; 

and 

 Introducing forbs and late-seral grasses to native shrubland 

communities. 

See the Upland Vegetation section for more details. 

FE-IV-MA- 7. Fuel breaks would follow disturbance corridors or 

would protect restoration or ES&BAR treatments. Construct fuel 

breaks consistent with the Upland Vegetation section. 

FE-IV-MA- 8. Noxious weed and invasive plants management 

related to fuels treatments includes measures for treating and 

preventing noxious weeds and invasive plants; see the Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants section for more details. 

ES&BAR 

FE-IV-O- 3. Rehabilitate and 

stabilize areas to help stabilize 

soils, promote natural recovery, 

and establish pre-fire or historic 

vegetation communities. 

ES&BAR 

FE-IV-MA- 9. Consider using temporary fences on a case-by-case 

basis to protect burned plant communities and to allow for uses in 

pastures with burned plant communities; however, temporary fences 

would not be allowed in pastures with native plant communities. 

Temporary fences may only be considered when there are at least 

2,000 unburned acres in the pasture. Reconstruction of fire-damaged 

permanent facilities on BLM-managed lands would follow BLM 

policy. 

FE-IV-MA- 10. When planning temporary fences, consider the size of 

the pasture, the amount burned, the amount of pasture unaffected by 

rehabilitation, resource concerns, location of water, and expense. 

2-101 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Fuels and ES&BAR 


 


 


 


 

FE-IV-MA- 11. Temporary fences would be removed once ES&BAR 

objectives have been met. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

FE-V-G- 1. Manage vegetation communities outside WUI to maintain or restore their fire regimes and 

mosaic of successional classes to within their historic range. 

Objectives 

Fuels 

FE-V-O- 1. Manage plant 

communities outside WUI to 

move toward FRCC 1. 

FE-V-O- 2. Implement fuels 

treatments to protect Critical 

Suppression Areas; limit the 

spread, size, and intensity of 

wildland fire; and maintain or 

improve vegetation. 

Management Actions 

Fuels 

FE-V-MA- 1. Implement fuels treatments to reduce fuel loads with 

consideration for other resource objectives. 

FE-V-MA- 2. Fuels treatments in WUI would include fuels reduction 

treatments and fuel breaks. Fuels treatments in WUI would focus on 

areas with high Relative Risk Ratings in the northern portion of the 

planning area. 

FE-V-MA- 3. Fuels treatments outside WUI would include: 

 Restoration, 

 Fuel breaks, and 

 Noxious weed and invasive plant treatments. 

Many of these are described in the Upland Vegetation and Noxious 

Weeds and Invasive Plants sections.
 

FE-V-MA- 4. The toolbox for fuels treatments would include:
 

 Chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; 

 Seeding and planting; 

 Removal of grazing; and 

 Prescribed fire. 

Chemical treatments could only be used after all other methods have 

been exhausted. Targeted grazing would not be allowed. 

FE-V-MA- 5. Fuels treatments would use native species. 

FE-V-MA- 6. Upland vegetation management related to fuels 

treatments includes, but is not limited to: 

 Restoring annual communities toward native, and 

 Introducing shrubs to non-native perennial communities and 

native grassland communities to break up the continuity of fuel. 

See the Upland Vegetation section for more details. 

FE-V-MA- 7. Fuel breaks would only follow designated roads and 

designated primitive roads. Construct fuel breaks consistent with the 

Upland Vegetation section. 

FE-V-MA- 8. Noxious weed and invasive plants management related 

to fuels treatments includes measures for treating and preventing 

noxious weeds and invasive plants; see the Noxious Weeds and 

Invasive Plants section for more details. Construct fuel breaks 

consistent with the Upland Vegetation section. 

August 2010 2-102 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Wild Horses

ES&BAR 

FE-V-O- 3. Rehabilitate and 

stabilize areas to help stabilize 

soils, promote natural recovery, 

and establish pre-fire or historic 

vegetation communities. 

ES&BAR 

FE-V-MA- 9. Temporary fences would not be used. Livestock 

grazing would be pulled back to pasture fences. Reconstruction of 

fire-damaged permanent facilities on BLM-managed lands would 

follow BLM policy. 

2.3.10. Wild Horses 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

WH-NA-G- 1. A viable, healthy population of wild horses will be maintained in accordance with Federal 

law. 

Objective 

WH-NA-O- 1. Provide forage to 

support a herd of 50 wild horses 

in the Saylor Creek Wild Horse 

HMA. 

Allocations 

WH-NA-A- 1. Manage the entire Saylor Creek Wild Horse Herd Area 

as an HMA. 

WH-NA-A- 2. No wild horse ranges are identified. 

WH-NA-A- 3. Allocate 600 AUMs for wild horses in MUA 7 (Map 4). 

Management Actions 

WH-NA-MA- 1. Develop a Wild Horse Management Plan. 

WH-NA-MA- 2. Where levels are to be adjusted, sufficient forage 

would be provided. 

WH-NA-MA- 3. Design fences to minimize wild horse movement 

conflicts in MUA 7 (Map 4). 

WH-NA-MA- 4. Animals being collected for adoption or removed by 

other appropriate means would receive care and attention. Adopted 

animals would be monitored in accordance with BLM policy until title 

for the animal(s) is/are issued. 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

WH-I-G- 1. The Saylor Creek Wild Horse HMA would be managed for a thriving natural ecological 

balance. 

Objective 

WH-I-O- 1. Manage a 

reproducing herd of 100 to 200 

wild horses in the Saylor Creek 

Wild Horse HMA. 

Allocations 

WH-I-A- 1. Manage the entire Saylor Creek Wild Horse Herd Area as 

an HMA. 

WH-I-A- 2. The initial herd size would be approximately 130 wild 

horses; the estimated herd size for a reproducing population of wild 

horses would be approximately 100 to 200 head. 

2-103 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wild Horses 


 

WH-I-A- 3. Allocate forage sufficient to maintain the wild horse 

population according to allocation levels described in the Livestock 

Grazing section. 

Management Actions 

WH-I-MA- 1. Develop a Herd Management Area Plan. 

WH-I-MA- 2. The HMA would remain open to livestock grazing, 

although grazing levels on an allotment-specific basis would be 

adjusted to accommodate wild horse numbers. 

WH-I-MA- 3. Re-design pasture configurations and fences within the 

HMA to facilitate genetic exchange, wild horse social interactions, 

and free-roaming characteristics. 

WH-I-MA- 4. Increase the reliability of artificial water sources for wild 

horses within the HMA. 

WH-I-MA- 5. Seasonal restrictions would be placed on travel within 

the HMA during foaling (from March through July); motorized travel 

would not be allowed on primitive roads during this time. 

WH-I-MA- 6. Seasonal restrictions on authorized uses within HMA to 

avoid disturbing wild horses during foaling (March through July) 

would be defined in the permit or authorization. 

WH-I-MA- 7. Commercial SRPs would not be allowed in the HMA. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

WH-II-G- 1. The Saylor Creek Wild Horse Herd Area would be managed for commercial uses.
 

Objective 

WH-II-O- 1. Manage the Saylor 

Creek Wild Horse Herd Area as 

an unpopulated herd area. 

Allocations 

WH-II-A- 1. Return the Saylor Creek HMA to Herd Area status. 

WH-II-A- 2. The initial herd size would be approximately 130 wild 

horses; the estimated herd size would be zero. 

WH-II-A- 3. No forage would be allocated for wild horses. 

Management Actions 

WH-II-MA- 1. Gather and remove the total wild horse population in 

the Saylor Creek Herd Area. Once removed, offer the animals for 

adoption or sale to individuals who can provide then with good 

homes, relocate selected animals to other HMAs, or place wild 

horses for which there is no adoption or sale demand in long-term 

pastures. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

WH-III-G- 1. The Saylor Creek Wild Horse HMA would be managed for a thriving natural ecological 

balance. 

August 2010 2-104 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Wild Horses 

Objective 

WH-III-O- 1. Manage a 

reproducing herd of 200 to 600 

wild horses in the Saylor Creek 

Wild Horse HMA. 

Allocations 

WH-III-A- 1. Manage the entire Saylor Creek Wild Horse Herd Area 

as an HMA. 

WH-III-A- 2. The initial herd size would be approximately 130 wild 

horses; the estimated herd size for a reproducing population of wild 

horses would be approximately 200 to 600 head.. 

WH-III-A- 3. Allocate forage sufficient to maintain the wild horse 

population according to allocation levels described in the Livestock 

Grazing section. 

Management Actions 

WH-III-MA- 1. Develop a Herd Management Area Plan. 

WH-III-MA- 2. The HMA would remain open to livestock grazing, 

although grazing levels would be adjusted on an allotment-specific 

basis to accommodate wild horse numbers. 

WH-III-MA- 3. Reduce fences within the HMA to facilitate access to 

forage and water, genetic exchange, wild horse social interactions, 

and free-roaming characteristics. 

WH-III-MA- 4. Increase the number and reliability of artificial water 

sources for wild horses and fire suppression within the HMA. 

WH-III-MA- 5. Seasonal restrictions would be placed on travel within 

the HMA during foaling (from March through July); motorized travel 

would not be allowed on primitive roads during this time. 

WH-III-MA- 6. Seasonal restrictions on authorized uses within HMA 

to avoid disturbing wild horses during foaling (March through July) 

would be defined in the permit or authorization. 

WH-III-MA- 7. Commercial SRPs would not be allowed in the HMA. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

WH-IV-G- 1. The Saylor Creek Wild Horse HMA would be managed for a thriving natural ecological 

balance. 

Objective 

WH-IV-O- 1. Manage a nonreproducing herd of up to 200 

wild horses in the Saylor Creek 

Wild Horse HMA. 

Allocations 

WH-IV-A- 1. Manage the entire Saylor Creek Wild Horse Herd Area 

as an HMA. 

WH-IV-A- 2. Manage the Saylor Creek HMA for a non-reproducing 

population of wild horses. The initial herd size would be 

approximately 130 wild horses; the estimated herd size would be 

about 200 non-reproducing wild horses. 

WH-IV-A- 3. Allocate forage sufficient to maintain the wild horse 

population according to allocation levels described in the Livestock 

Grazing section. 

2-105 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources 

Wild Horses 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Management Actions 

WH-IV-MA- 1. Develop a Herd Management Area Plan. 

WH-IV-MA- 2. The HMA would remain open to livestock grazing, 

although grazing levels would be adjusted on an allotment-specific 

basis to accommodate wild horse numbers. 

WH-IV-MA- 3. Re-design pasture configurations and fences within 

the HMA to facilitate wild horse social interactions and free-roaming 

characteristics. 

WH-IV-MA- 4. Increase the reliability of artificial water sources for 

horses within the HMA. 

WH-IV-MA- 5. Commercial SRPs would not be allowed in the HMA. 

August 2010 2-106 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

WH-V-G- 1. The Saylor Creek Wild Horse HMA would be managed for a thriving natural ecological 

balance. 

Objective 

WH-V-O- 1. Manage a nonreproducing herd of up to 500 

wild horses in the Saylor Creek 

Wild Horse HMA. 

Allocations 

WH-V-A- 1. Manage the entire Saylor Creek Wild Horse Herd Area 

as an HMA. 

WH-V-A- 2. Manage the Saylor Creek HMA for a non-reproducing 

population of wild horses. The initial herd size would be 

approximately 130 wild horses; the estimated herd size would be 

about 500 non-reproducing wild horses. 

WH-V-A- 3. Allocate forage sufficient to maintain the wild horse 

population according to allocation levels described in the Livestock 

Grazing section. 

Management Actions 

WH-V-MA- 1. Develop a Herd Management Area Plan. 

WH-V-MA- 2. The HMA would remain open to livestock grazing, 

although grazing levels would be adjusted on allotment-specific basis 

to accommodate wild horse numbers. 

WH-V-MA- 3. Reduce fences within the HMA to facilitate access to 

forage and water, wild horse social interactions, and free-roaming 

characteristics. 

WH-V-MA- 4. Increase the reliability of artificial water sources for 

wild horses within the HMA. 

WH-V-MA- 5. Commercial SRPs would not be allowed in the HMA. 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Paleontological Resources


 
 

2.3.11. Paleontological Resources 

 Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

PR-NA-O- 1. Protect and 

manage paleontological sites in 

major paleontological areas in 

MUAs 4, 6, and 7 (Map 4), 

including Sand Point, Pasadena 

Valley, Rosevear Creek and 

Gulch, Dove Springs, Deer 

Gulch, Pilgrim Spring and 

Stage, and Glenns Ferry. 

Management Action 

PR-NA-MA- 1. Manage paleontological resources to protect, 

maintain, or enhance sites or areas for their scientific and 

educational values. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

PR-CA-G- 1. Identify, manage, and protect paleontological resources for scientific research, educational 

purposes, and public use. 

Objective 

PR-CA-O- 1. Identify, manage, 

and protect important 

paleontological sites. 

Management Actions 

PR-CA-MA- 1. Implement measures to protect paleontological 

resources. Measures may include, but not be limited to: 

 Avoidance, 

 Fencing, 

 Stabilization, 

 Data recovery through collection or excavation, 

 Interpretation, or 

 Administrative closure. 

PR-CA-MA- 2. Identify areas at risk of damage from illegal activities 

and implement management to discourage those activities. 

PR-CA-MA- 3. Minimize or prevent human-caused damage to 

paleontological resources through educational and interpretive 

outreach programs. 

PR-CA-MA- 4. Consider surface-disturbing activities that affect 

fossil-bearing geologic units (Potential Fossil Yield Class 5) in sitespecific analyses, which may include a field inventory. Mitigate 

potential impacts to paleontological resources.
 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

2-107 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources 

Paleontological Resources 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 


 
 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Action 

PR-I-MA- 1. Issue permits for paleontological research to qualified 

paleontologists. Actively solicit research efforts to identify, monitor, 

and collect data on fossil resources. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Action 

PR-II-MA- 1. Issue permits for paleontological research to qualified 

paleontologists.
 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Action 

PR-III-MA- 1. Issue permits for paleontological research to qualified 

paleontologists. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Action 

PR-IV-MA- 1. Issue permits for paleontological research to qualified 

paleontologists if proposed research is compatible with Upland 

Vegetation objectives. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Action 

PR-V-MA- 1. Issue permits for paleontological research to qualified 

paleontologists if proposed research is compatible with Upland 

Vegetation objectives 

. 

August 2010 2-108 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Cultural Resources


 


 


 


 


 


 

2.3.12. Cultural Resources 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

CR-NA-O- 1. Protect the cultural 

values of the Dry Lake/Bruneau 

River Complex, Arch Canyon, 

the Dove Spring complex, and 

additional significant cultural 

resource complexes through 

special designation and 

management. 

Management Actions 

CR-NA-MA- 1. Develop a Cultural Plan for Pot Hole Complex, MUA 

7 (Map 4), Dry Lake Beds/Bruneau River Complex, Post Office, Dry 

Lakes Complex, Juniper Ranch, Clover Creek, and Devil Creek. 

CR-NA-MA- 2. All significant cultural sites, as determined by the 

SHPO and Advisory Council, would be retained in Federal 

ownership. 

CR-NA-MA- 3. The ruts of the main route and south alternate route 

of the Oregon NHT and Kelton Freight Road would be protected by 

not allowing incompatible uses to occur with a 0.5 mile corridor 

through which these routes pass. 

CR-NA-MA- 4. Place cultural signs in MUA 4 and 7 (Map 4). 

CR-NA-MA- 5. Conduct a Class III inventory as specified in BLM 

Manual Section 8111.4 prior to commencement of any BLM-initiated 

or authorized action involving surface-disturbing activities or sale or 

transfer from Federal management. If properties that may be eligible 

for the National Register are discovered, consult with SHPO and 

forward the documentation to the Keeper of the National Register to 

obtain a determination of eligibility in accordance with 36 CFR Part 

63. 

CR-NA-MA- 6. Recommend the Oregon Trail, Dry Lake 

Beds/Bruneau River Complex, and Devil Creek Complex for listing 

on the National Register.
 

CR-NA-MA- 7. Protect all cultural sites known to be eligible for 

National Register nomination or listed on the National Register from
 

deterioration. 

CR-NA-MA- 8. Cultural resource values discovered in a proposed 

work area would be protected by adhering to the following methods: 

 Redesigning or relocating the project;
 

 Salvaging, through scientific methods, the cultural resource 

values pursuant to the SHPO agreement; 

 Should the site be determined to be of significant value, and/or 

the above-mentioned methods are not considered adequate, the 

project would be abandoned. 

2-109 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Cultural Resources 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goals 

Management 

CR-CA-G- 1. Identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources and ensure they are available 

for appropriate uses by present and future generations. 

Protection 

CR-CA-G- 2. Seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or humancaused deterioration or potential conflict with other resource uses by ensuring all authorizations for land 

use and resource use complies with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, 

Section 106. 

Objectives Allocations 

Management Management 

CR-CA-O- 1. Manage and CR-CA-A- 1. Cultural resources would be allocated as described in 

protect cultural resources Appendix I. 

according to their potential 

traditional, scientific, Management Actions 

conservation, public, or Management experimental value. CR-CA-MA- 1. Maintain on-going cultural resource inventory 

information in GIS format in accordance with confidentiality 

mandates.
 

CR-CA-MA- 2. Identify priority geographic areas for future inventory 

based on the probability of unrecorded significant resources, and 

conduct inventories independent of specific land use actions.
 

CR-CA-MA- 3. Implement measures to minimize or prevent damage 

to cultural resources due to BLM management activities, authorized 

and allowed uses, and human-caused damage such as vandalism,
 

unauthorized surface collection of artifacts, and unintentional 

disturbances. Measures may include, but not be limited to: 

 Avoidance, 

 Fencing
 

 Stabilization,
 

 Data recovery through collection or excavation, 

 Interpretation, 

 Administrative closure, or 

 Proactive law enforcement patrols. 

CR-CA-MA- 4. Develop cultural resource project plans as needed to 

address preservation actions for cultural resource complexes or
 

individual sites identified as high risk for adverse impacts.
 

CR-CA-MA- 5. The Kelton and Toana Freight Road protective 

corridors include 0.25 miles on either side of the trail segments or the 

visual horizon of those segments, whichever is less (Map 112).
 

CR-CA-MA- 6. Manage the Kelton and Toana Freight Road 

protective corridors as avoidance areas for surface-disturbing 

activities that could cause adverse effects, including but not limited to 

right-of-way construction and maintenance and placement of salting, 

supplemental feeding, watering, and holding facilities for livestock. 

August 2010 2-110 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Cultural Resources 

CR-CA-MA- 7. Developments such as roads, trails, pipelines, 

fences, and power lines may be allowed to cross segments of the 

Kelton and Toana Freight Roads in areas where previous 

disturbance has occurred after consultation with SHPO. 

CR-CA-MA- 8. Surface-disturbing equipment, such as bulldozers 

and road graders, cannot be used on segments of the Kelton or 

Toana Freight Roads or within their protective corridors without prior 

management approval, unless to protect life or property. 

Protection 

CR-CA-O- 2. Strive to limit the 

adverse effects of BLM 

decisions on important cultural 

resources. 

Protection 

CR-CA-MA- 9. All authorizations for land and resource uses would 

comply with all cultural resource laws and regulations, including 

Section 106 of the NHPA, consistent with and subject to the 

objectives established in the RMP for the proactive use of cultural 

resources in the public interest. 

CR-CA-MA- 10. Nominate eligible sites for the National Register on 

a case-by-case basis. 

CR-CA-MA- 11. Manage sites that are determined eligible for the 

NRHP for their local, regional, or national significance. If natural- or 

human-caused deterioration cannot be prevented, BLM would 

consult with the tribes and SHPO, as appropriate, to mitigate the 

adverse effects. 

CR-CA-MA- 12. Consider all prudent and feasible alternatives to 

avoid or mitigate adverse effects on cultural resources and their uses 

when resolving site-specific conflicts between cultural resource use 

allocations and competing land use allocations and where the 

competing land use has potential to adversely affect cultural 

resources. Where such alternatives require undue cost or would be 

incompatible with competing goals, managers shall seek to balance 

goals considering the magnitude of the harm to the cultural resource 

or its use, the significance of the resource or its use, the effect of 

mitigation activities on the competing use allocation, and public 

sensitivities. 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goals 

See goals in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objectives in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

Management 

CR-I-MA- 1. Allow research, including archaeological, historic, 

ethnographic, and non-intrusive research, to better define the extent, 

nature, and value of cultural resources in the planning area. 

CR-I-MA- 2. Important cultural resources, as determined through 

consultation with tribes and/or SHPO, would generally be retained in 

Federal ownership. Under limited circumstances, after appropriate 

consultation and mitigation, lands containing important cultural 

resources may be exchanged for lands containing resources of 

greater or equal value. 

2-111 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Cultural Resources 

	 	 

CR-I-MA- 3. Avoid or minimize new ground disturbance within 300 

feet of playas to protect associated cultural resources. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goals 

See goals in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objectives in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

Management 

CR-II-MA- 1. Allow research, including archaeological, historic, 

ethnographic, and non-intrusive research, to better define the extent, 

nature, and value of cultural resources in the planning area. 

CR-II-MA- 2. Important cultural resources, as determined through 

consultation with tribes and/or SHPO, would generally be retained in 

Federal ownership. Under limited circumstances, after appropriate 

consultation and mitigation, lands containing important cultural 

resources may be exchanged or sold. 

CR-II-MA- 3. Avoid or minimize new ground disturbance within 150 

feet of playas to protect associated cultural resources. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goals 

See goals in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objectives in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

Management 

CR-III-MA- 1. Allow research, including archaeological, historic, 

ethnographic, and non-intrusive research, to better define the extent, 

nature, and value of cultural resources in the planning area. 

CR-III-MA- 2. Important cultural resources, as determined through 

consultation with tribes and/or SHPO, would generally be retained in 

Federal ownership. Under limited circumstances, after appropriate 

consultation and mitigation, lands containing important cultural 

resources may be exchanged for lands containing resources of 

greater or equal value. 

CR-III-MA- 3. Avoid or minimize new ground disturbance within 150 

feet of playas to protect associated cultural resources; this restriction 

would not apply to fire suppression activities. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goals 

See goals in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objectives in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

Management 

CR-IV-MA- 1. Actively solicit researchers to identify, monitor, and 

gather data on cultural resources, including archaeological, historic, 

August 2010	 2-112 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Visual Resources 

	 


 

	 


 

ethnographic, and non-intrusive research. Develop cooperative 

agreements and partnerships with tribes, historical societies, and 

colleges to encourage research and assist with monitoring. 

CR-IV-MA- 2. Important cultural resources, as determined through 

consultation with tribes and/or SHPO, would generally be retained in 

Federal ownership. Under limited circumstances, after appropriate 

consultation and mitigation, lands containing important cultural 

resources may be exchanged for lands containing resources of 

greater or equal value. 

CR-IV-MA- 3. Avoid or minimize new ground disturbance within 300 

feet of playas to protect associated cultural resources. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goals 

See goals in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objectives in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

Management 

CR-V-MA- 1. Actively solicit researchers to identify, monitor, and 

gather data on cultural resources, including archaeological, historic, 

ethnographic, and non-intrusive research. Develop cooperative 

agreements and partnerships with tribes, historical societies, and 

colleges to encourage research and assist with monitoring. 

CR-V-MA- 2. Important cultural resources, as determined through 

consultation with tribes and/or SHPO, would generally be retained in 

Federal ownership. Under limited circumstances, after appropriate 

consultation and mitigation, lands containing important cultural 

resources may be exchanged for lands containing resources of 

greater or equal value. 

CR-V-MA- 3. Avoid new ground disturbance within 300 feet of playas 

to protect associated cultural resources. 

2.3.13. Visual Resources 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

No objective stated.	 

Allocations 

VR-NA-A- 1. Areas managed as Visual Resource Management 

(VRM) Class I (129,000 acres) would include: 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor, and 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

VR-NA-A- 2. Areas managed as VRM Class II (112,000 acres) 

would include:
 

 Corridors along the Snake River, Salmon Falls Creek, Devil 

Creek, and Lower Cedar Creek; 

2-113 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Visual Resources 

 


 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

 Portions of Browns Bench and China Mountain; and 

 Portions of the Jarbidge Foothills and Diamond A Desert. 

VR-NA-A- 3. Areas managed as VRM Class III (292,000 acres) 

would include:
 

 Corridors along Clover Creek, Clover-Three Creek Road, and 

17-Mile Road; 

	 An area between Lower Cedar Creek and Salmon Falls Creek; 

and 

	 Portions of the Jarbidge Foothills and Diamond A Desert. 

VR-NA-A- 4. The remainder of the planning area would be managed 

as VRM Class IV (841,000 acres). 

See Map 35 for locations of areas allocated to VRM Class I, II, III, 

and IV. 

Management Action 

VR-NA-MA- 1. Consider the visual and scenic values of the public 

lands whenever any physical actions are proposed on BLM lands. 

The degree of alterations to the natural landscape would be guided 

by the criteria established for the four VRM Classes as outlined in 

BLM Manual 8400: Visual Resource Management. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal and Objective 

VR-CA-G- 1. Maintain visual resource characteristics and values of public lands according to VRM 

classes. 

Objective 

See Goal and Objective. 

Allocations 

See allocations in specific alternatives. 

Management Action 

VR-CA-MA- 1. Ensure BLM management activities and authorized 

uses are designed to meet the VRM objectives for the project area. 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal and objective for Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See goal and objective for 

Management Common to All 

Action Alternatives. 

Allocations 

VR-I-A- 1. Areas to be managed as VRM Class I (130,000 acres) 

would include: 

 WSAs; 

 Eligible/suitable WSRs with Scenic Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values (ORVs; i.e., segments of Salmon Falls and Cougar Point 

Creeks and Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers); 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC; and 

 Salmon Falls Creek ACEC. 

August 2010	 2-114 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Visual Resources 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

VR-I-A- 2. Areas to be managed as VRM Class II (181,000 acres) 

would include:
 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor; 

 Non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics; 

 Jarbidge Foothills SRMA; 

 Wilkins Island; 

 The Jarbidge River corridor between Murphy Hot Springs and 

the Jarbidge Forks; and 

 Areas near Buck Creek. 

VR-I-A- 3. Areas to be managed as VRM Class III (119,000 acres) 

would include:
 

 The Snake River corridor (from the field office [FO] boundary to 

0.25 miles above the breaks); 

 The foreground of the Oregon NHT protective corridor (1.5 miles 

on each side); 

 ROW corridors through areas otherwise managed as VRM Class 

I or II; 

 Portions of the Diamond A Desert not otherwise managed as 

VRM Class I or II; 

 Deadman/Yahoo SRMA; and 

 The Toana Freight Road protective corridor. 

VR-I-A- 4. The remainder of the planning area would be managed as 

VRM Class IV (944,000 acres). 

See Map 36 for locations of areas allocated to VRM Class I, II, III, 

and IV. 

Management Action 

See management action in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal and objective for Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See goal and objective for 

Management Common to All 

Action Alternatives. 

Allocations 

VR-II-A- 1. Areas to be managed as VRM Class I (103,000 acres) 

would include:
 

 WSAs, and 

 Eligible/suitable WSRs with Scenic ORVs (i.e., segments of 

Salmon Falls and Cougar Point Creeks and Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers). 

VR-II-A- 2. Areas to be managed as VRM Class II (11,000 acres) 

would include:
 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor, and 

 The Jarbidge River corridor between Murphy Hot Springs and 

the Jarbidge Forks. 

VR-II-A- 3. Areas to be managed as VRM Class III (19,000 acres) 

would include: 

2-115 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Visual Resources 

 

 

 

 

	 


 

	 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 ROW corridors through areas otherwise managed as VRM Class 

I or II; 

 The Toana Freight Road protective corridor; and 

 Salmon Falls Reservoir SRMA. 

VR-II-A- 4. The remainder of the planning area would be managed 

as VRM Class IV (1,240,000 acres). 

See Map 37 for locations of areas allocated to VRM Class I, II, III, 

and IV. 

Management Action 

See management action in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal and objective for Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See goal and objective for 

Management Common to All 

Action Alternatives. 

Allocations 

VR-III-A- 1. Areas to be managed as VRM Class I (103,000 acres) 

would include: 

 WSAs; 

 Eligible/suitable WSRs with Scenic ORVs (i.e., segments of 

Salmon Falls and Cougar Point Creeks and Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers); 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC; and
 

 Salmon Falls Creek ACEC.
 

VR-III-A- 2. Areas to be managed as VRM Class II (11,000 acres) 

would include:
 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor, and 

 The Jarbidge River corridor between Murphy Hot Springs and 

the Jarbidge Forks. 

VR-III-A- 3. Areas to be managed as VRM Class III (336,000 acres) 

would include:
 

 The Snake River corridor (from the FO boundary to 0.25 miles 

above the breaks); 

	 The foreground of the Oregon NHT protective corridor (1.5 miles 

on each side); 

	 ROW corridors through areas otherwise managed as VRM Class 

I or II; 

	 Portions of the Jarbidge Foothills and Diamond A Desert not 

otherwise managed as VRM Class I or II; 

 Wilkins Island; 

	 Deadman/Yahoo SRMA; and 

	 The Toana Freight Road protective corridor. 

VR-III-A- 4. The remainder of the planning area would be managed 

as VRM Class IV (924,000 acres). 

August 2010	 2-116 
 

 

 

 


 

	 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Visual Resources 

See Map 38 for locations of areas allocated to VRM Class I, II, III, 

and IV. 

Management Action 

See management action in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal and objective for Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See goal and objective for 

Management Common to All 

Action Alternatives. 

Allocations 

VR-IV-A- 1. Areas to be managed as VRM Class I (128,000 acres) 

would include:
 

 WSAs, 

	 Eligible/suitable WSRs with Scenic ORVs (segments of Salmon 

Falls and Cougar Point Creeks and Bruneau and Jarbidge 

Rivers), and 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC. 

VR-IV-A- 2. Areas to be managed as VRM Class II (70,000 acres) 

would include:
 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor, 

 Browns Bench, 

 Wilkins Island; 

 Non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics,
 

 The Jarbidge River corridor between Murphy Hot Springs and 

the Jarbidge Forks, and 

 Areas near Buck Creek. 

VR-IV-A- 3. Areas to be managed as VRM Class III (366,000 acres 

in Alternative IV-A; 334,000 acres in Alternative IV-B, the Preferred 

Alternative) would include: 

 The Snake River corridor (from the FO boundary to .25 miles 

above the breaks); 

 The foreground of the Oregon NHT protective corridor (1.5 miles 

on each side); 

 ROW corridors through areas otherwise managed as VRM Class 

I or II; 

 Portions of the Jarbidge Foothills and Diamond A Desert not 

otherwise managed as VRM Class I or II; 

 Inside Desert ACEC; 

 Deadman/Yahoo SRMA; and 

 Lands between the Toana Road protective corridor and Salmon 

Falls Creek. 

VR-IV-A- 4. The remainder of the planning area would be managed 

as VRM Class IV (810,000 acres in Alternative IV-A; 842,000 acres 

in Alternative IV-B, the Preferred Alternative). 

See Maps 39 and 40 for locations of areas allocated to VRM Class I, 

II, III, and IV. 

2-117 August 2010 
 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Visual Resources 

Management Action 

See management action in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal and objective for Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See goal and objective for 

Management Common to All 

Action Alternatives. 

Allocations 

VR-V-A- 1. Areas to be managed as VRM Class I (103,000 acres) 

would include: 

 WSAs; and 

 Eligible/suitable WSRs with Scenic ORVs (i.e., segments of 

Salmon Falls and Cougar Point Creeks and Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers). 

VR-V-A- 2. Areas to be managed as VRM Class II (269,000 acres) 

would include:
 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor, 

 Non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics,
 

 The Jarbidge Foothills, and
 

 Portions of the Diamond A Desert not otherwise managed as
 

VRM Class I. 

VR-V-A- 3. Areas to be managed as VRM Class III (649,000 acres) 

would include:
 

 Portions of the Sagebrush Sea ACEC not otherwise managed as
 

VRM Class I or II; 

	 The Snake River corridor (from the FO boundary to .25 miles 

above the breaks); 

	 The foreground of the Oregon NHT protective corridor (1.5 miles 

on each side); 

	 Lands between the Balanced Rock ROW Corridor and Lower 

Salmon Falls Creek; and 

	 ROW corridors through areas otherwise managed as VRM Class 

I or II. 

VR-V-A- 4. The remainder of the planning area would be managed 

as VRM Class IV (353,000 acres). 

See Map 41 for locations of areas allocated to VRM Class I, II, III, 

and IV. 

Management Action 

See management action in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

August 2010	 2-118 
	 


 


 

	 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

2.3.14. Non-Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

No objective stated.	 

Management Actions 

No management actions stated. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

WC-CA-G- 1. Maintain wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands as appropriate, considering 

manageability and the context of competing resource demands. 

Objective 

See objectives in specific 

alternatives. 

Management Actions 

See management actions in specific alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

WC-I-O- 1. Manage non-WSA 

lands with wilderness 

characteristics in the western 

portion of the planning area for 

their undeveloped character and 

to provide opportunities for 

primitive recreational activities 

and solitude. 

Management Actions 

WC-I-MA- 1. Manage non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

in the Bruneau-Jarbidge area to maintain their wilderness character. 

In 2009, these lands include the following areas: 

 Hole in the Ground (7,000 acres), 

 Columbet Table (4,000 acres), 

 Long Draw (17,000 acres), and 

 East Fork Jarbidge (6,000 acres).
 

See Map 42 for locations. 

WC-I-MA- 2. Management for these lands would be as follows:
 

	 Retain in Federal ownership (Land Tenure Zone 1).
 

	 Manage as VRM Class II, with the exception of the existing utility 

corridor managed as VRM III. 

	 Close to motorized vehicle use. See the Transportation and 

Travel section for more details. 

	 Close to leasable mineral exploration and development. 

	 Close to salable mineral development. 

	 Allow new range infrastructure if the infrastructure would help 

enhance wilderness characteristics. Existing range infrastructure 

may be maintained. 

	 Make these lands a ROW avoidance area. 

2-119 August 2010 

 


 


 


 


 

	 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

WC-II-O- 1. Non-WSA lands 

would not be managed to 

maintain wilderness 

characteristics.
 

Management Actions 

No management actions stated. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

WC-III-O- 2. Non-WSA lands 

would not be managed to 

maintain wilderness 

characteristics.
 

Management Actions 

No management actions stated. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

WC-IV-O- 1. Manage non-WSA 

lands with wilderness 

characteristics for their 

undeveloped character and to 

provide opportunities for 

primitive recreational activities 

and solitude. 

Management Actions 

WC-IV-MA- 1. Manage non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics to maintain their wilderness character. In 2009, these 

lands include the following areas:
 

 Corral Creek (6,000 acres), 

 Hole in the Ground (7,000 acres), 

 Black Canyon (8,000 acres), 

 Salmon Falls Creek (5,000 acres), 

 Columbet Table (4,000 acres), 

 Long Draw (17,000 acres), and 

 East Fork Jarbidge (6,000 acres).
 

See Map 42 for locations. 

WC-IV-MA- 2. Management for these lands would be as follows:
 

	 Retain in Federal ownership (Land Tenure Zone 1).
 

	 Manage as VRM Class II, with the exception of the existing utility 

corridor managed as VRM III. 

	 Close to motorized travel vehicle use. See the Transportation 

and Travel section for more details. 

	 Close to leasable mineral exploration and development. 

	 Close to salable mineral development. 

	 Allow new range infrastructure if the infrastructure would help 

enhance wilderness characteristics. Existing range infrastructure 

may be maintained. 

	 Make these lands a ROW exclusion area. 

August 2010	 2-120 

 


 


 

	 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resources 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

WC-V-O- 1. Manage non-WSA 

lands with wilderness 

characteristics for their 

undeveloped character and to 

provide opportunities for 

primitive recreational activities 

and solitude. 

Management Actions 

WC-V-MA- 1. Manage non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics to maintain their wilderness character. In 2009, these 

lands include the following areas:
 

 Corral Creek (6,000 acres), 

 Hole in the Ground (7,000 acres), 

 Black Canyon (8,000 acres), 

 Salmon Falls Creek (5,000 acres), 

 Columbet Table (4,000 acres), Long Draw (17,000 acres), and 

 East Fork Jarbidge (6,000 acres).
 

See Map 42 for locations. 

WC-V-MA- 2. Management for these lands would be as follows:
 

	 Retain in Federal ownership (Land Tenure Zone 1).
 

	 Manage as VRM Class II, with the exception of the existing utility 

corridor managed as VRM III. 

	 Close to motorized vehicle use. See the Transportation and 

Travel section for more details. 

	 Close to leasable mineral exploration and development. 

	 Close these lands to salable mineral development. 

	 Allow new range infrastructure if the infrastructure would help 

enhance wilderness characteristics. Existing range infrastructure 

may be maintained. 

	 Make these lands a ROW exclusion area. 

2-121 August 2010 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Livestock Grazing 

2.4. RESOURCE USES 

2.4.1. Livestock Grazing
 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objectives 

Forage and Grazing 

Management Practices 

LG-NA-O- 1. Design and 

establish grazing management 

practices to meet fisheries, 

riparian, and water quality 

needs. 

LG-NA-O- 2. Establish livestock 

grazing systems and practices 

that recognize the physiological 

requirements of forbs and 

shrubs. 

Allocation 

Forage and Grazing Management Practices 

LG-NA-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be available for 

livestock grazing (1,414,000 acres). Salmon Falls Creek Canyon
 

would not be available for livestock grazing (2,700 acres). An 

additional 48,000 acres are not contained within grazing allotments 

and therefore are not grazed, even though the 1987 RMP does not 

specifically make these areas unavailable for livestock grazing; these 

areas would continue to be unavailable for livestock grazing. See 

Map 44 for locations.
 

LG-NA-A- 2. Continue allocating approximately 200,000 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.
 

LG-NA-A- 3. Allocate the following forage: 

 Bighorn sheep – 598 AUMS in MUAs 10, 15, and 16
 

 Mule deer – 1,600 AUMs in MUAs 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 

15, and 16 

 Pronghorn – 261 AUMs in MUAs 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16. 

 Wild horses – 600 AUMs in MUA 7. 

See Map 4 for MUA boundaries. 

Management Actions 

Forage and Grazing Management Practices 

LG-NA-MA- 1. 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 (Map 4). 

Additional grazing systems would be implemented elsewhere. The 

type of system to be implemented would be based on the 

consideration of the following factors: 

 MUA and allotment-specific management objectives; 

 Resource characteristics, including vegetation potential and 

water availability; 

 Operator needs; and 

 Implementation costs. 

Grazing systems that will be considered include:
 

 Rest-rotation grazing
 

 Deferred rotation grazing,
 

 Deferred grazing, 

August 2010 2-122 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

 Alternative grazing, 

 Short-duration high intensity grazing, or
 
 

 Seasonal grazing.
 
 

LG-NA-MA- 2. Livestock management measures would be 

implemented where necessary to prevent livestock access to 

canyons.
 
 

LG-NA-MA- 3. Incorporate forage/cover requirements specific to 

areas of primary wildlife use into allotment management plans.
 
 

LG-NA-MA- 4. Livestock season of use would be adjusted in 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. Season of use changes would be 

made after monitoring is completed along with other needed grazing 

use adjustments, or when activity plans are completed. Priority would 

be given to resolving conflicts on crucial wildlife habitat areas in poor
 

ecological condition.
 
 

LG-NA-MA- 5. Prioritize grazing allotments in the planning area for 

processing and issuing grazing authorizations and for monitoring 

effectiveness of grazing management according to their assigned 

Selective Management Category displayed in Appendix J. The “M” 

allotments generally would be managed to maintain satisfactory 

resource conditions; “I” allotments generally would be managed to 

improve resource conditions; and “C” allotments would receive 

custodial management to prevent resource deterioration. 

Range Infrastructure

LG-NA-O- 3. Design range 

infrastructure to achieve 

objectives in the Vegetation 

Communities, Fish and Wildlife, 

and Livestock Grazing 

objectives. 

Range Infrastructure

LG-NA-MA- 6. A variety of range infrastructure, grazing systems, 

and other range management practices may be considered in 

conjunction with livestock management on individual allotments. 

Such practices would be based on the range management category 

in which the allotment has been placed and would be formulated in 

consultation, coordination, and cooperation with livestock operators, 

and other interested parties. 

LG-NA-MA- 7. The extent, location, and timing of infrastructure 

would be based on the allotment-specific management objectives 

adopted through the resource management planning process, 

interdisciplinary development and review of proposed actions, 

operator contributions, and BLM funding capability. 

LG-NA-MA- 8. Use the following typical design features and 

construction practices for range infrastructure: 

 Fences would be constructed to provide exterior allotment 

boundaries, divide allotments into pastures, protect streams, and 

control livestock. 

 Most fences would be three or four wire with steel post spaced 

16.5 feet apart with intermediate wire stays. 

	 Jack legs would be used where driving steel posts are not 

practical. 

2-123 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses

Livestock Grazing 

August 2010 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

	 Where fences may impair the movement of wildlife, they would 

be no more than 40 inches in height, three strand, with the 

bottom wire smooth and at least 16 inches above the ground. 

	 Where needed on key big game areas, the top wire would also 

be smooth. 

	 Fences that create wildlife movement problems would be 

modified. 

	 Proposed fence lines would not be bladed or scraped. 

	 Gates or cattleguards would be installed where fences cross 

roads. 

	 For any fences in wildlife migration areas, the need for let-down 

fences to allow passage of wildlife would be analyzed. These 

fences would be let down when livestock are not present. The 

BLM would be responsible for management of these special 

purpose fences. 

	 Springs would be developed or redeveloped using a backhoe to 

install a buried collection system, usually consisting of drain tile 

and a collection box. The collection box is normally made from a 

section of 24 to 42 inch metal culvert with a cover and a fitting to 

which a delivery pipe is connected. A short pipeline would be 

installed to deliver water to a trough for use by livestock and 

wildlife. 

	 Normally the spring area is fenced to exclude livestock following 

development. 

	 Wherever possible, water pipelines would be buried. The trench 

may be excavated by a backhoe, Ditch Witch, or similar 

equipment. Rigid plastic pipe would be placed in the trench and 

the excavated material would be used to backfill. While some 

flexible pipe may be installed using a ripper tooth, this is not a 

preferred technique. 

	 Most pipelines would have water tanks spaced 1 to 2 miles 

apart. 

	 Well sites would be selected based on geologic reports that 

predict the depth to reliable aquifers. 

	 All applicable State laws and regulations that apply to the 

development of groundwater would be observed. 

LG-NA-MA- 9. Maintain range infrastructure in working condition as 

long as they are deemed necessary to management. 

LG-NA-MA- 10. Develop pipelines as follows: 

 24.5 miles of pipeline in MUA 6 

 4 miles in MUA 7 

 2 miles in MUA 9 

 53.5 miles in MUA 11 

 57.8 miles in MUA 12 

 16.1 miles in MUA 13 

 3.5 miles in MUA 16 

See Map 4 for MUA boundaries. 

LG-NA-MA- 11. Develop reservoirs, wells, or springs as follows: 

	 2 reservoirs or wells in MUA 7 

	 1 springs and 2 reservoirs in MUA 10 if the WSA is released by 

Congress 

	 1 reservoir, well, or spring in MUA 12 

2-124 
 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

See Map 4 for MUA boundaries. 

LG-NA-MA- 12. Develop fences as follows: 

 6.3 miles in MUA 10 

 2.7 miles in MUA 12 

 9.4 miles in MUA 13 

 7.6 miles in MUA 16 

See Map 4 for MUA boundaries. 

LG-NA-MA- 13. Fence reservoirs and provide water for livestock 

away from the reservoirs where possible and if needed by wildlife. 

Consider wildlife habitat needs when reservoir size determinations 

are made. 

LG-NA-MA- 14. Design new spring developments and modify 

selected existing spring developments to protect wetted areas. 

LG-NA-MA- 15. Livestock-related activities such as salting, feeding, 

construction of holding facilities, and stock driveways would not be 

allowed to occur within the riparian zone of a stream drainage 

system. 

LG-NA-MA- 16. Modify fences to allow for pronghorn and mule deer 

passage in areas where their needs are not being met in MUA 7, 11, 

12, 13, and 16 (Map 4). Modify other fences where specific wildlife 

needs are not being met. Build new fences to allow for wildlife 

passage. 

LG-NA-MA- 17. Cattleguards would be considered a part of the 

fence and would be installed as necessary. 

LG-NA-MA- 168. All allotments in which range improvement funds 

are to be spent will be subjected to an economic analysis. The 

analysis will be used to develop a final priority ranking of allotments 

for the commitment of the range improvement funds that are needed 

to implement activity plans. The highest priority for implementation 

generally will be assigned to those improvements for which total 

anticipated benefits exceed costs. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

LG-CA-G- 1. Manage livestock grazing to ensure achievement of or movement towards meeting Idaho 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (S&Gs; Appendix K). 

Objectives 

Forage and Grazing 

Management Practices 

LG-CA-O- 1. Manage livestock 

grazing in annual communities 

to achieve objectives in the 

Upland Vegetation and Wildland 

Fire Ecology and Management 

sections.
 

Management Actions 

Forage and Grazing Management Practices 

LG-CA-MA- 1. Implement adaptive management using grazing use
 

indicators to meet resource and special designation area objectives 

as feasible and following BLM policy. Grazing use indicators may 

include:
 

 Utilization for upland vegetation and riparian areas, 

 Bank and soil surface alteration, 

2-125 August 2010 
 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Livestock Grazing 

Objectives for other vegetation 

communities are found in 

objectives specific to each 

action alternative. 

 Indicators related to priority species and their habitats (see the 

Fish and Wildlife section), and 

 Other indicators identified on an allotment-specific basis 

depending on the resources present. 

LG-CA-MA- 2. Grazing permit renewal following the Record of 

Decision (ROD) would follow the process outlined in IM-ID-2009-040 

or subsequent policy. The basic strategy for permit renewal is 

contained in Appendix L. Allotment-specific decisions for livestock 

grazing management, including grazing use indicators and grazing
 

use criteria, and adjustments to an allotment’s Selective 

Management Category would be made at that time. 

LG-CA-MA- 3. The toolbox for managing livestock grazing would 

include, but not be limited to: 

 Rest rotation,
 

 Deferred rotation, 

 Seasons of use, 

 Stocking rates,
 

 Class and kind of livestock, 

 Herding, 

 Frequency of grazing, 

 Closure for resource protection, 

 Location of range infrastructure, and 

 Location and types of supplements.
 

Specific tools to be used would be identified on an allotment-specific 

basis through the permit renewal process, depending on the 

resources present. 

LG-CA-MA- 4. Seasons of use and changes in class and kind of 

livestock would be consistent with resource objectives and analyzed
 

in site-specific NEPA analysis through the permit renewal process.
 

LG-CA-MA- 5. Identify and implement measures to prevent livestock 

from entering areas closed to livestock grazing. Measures could 

include, but not be limited to: 

 Fencing, 

 Using natural barriers, 

 Active herding, 

 Water placement, and 

 Supplement placement.
 

LG-CA-MA- 6. Implement drought management guidelines during 

periods of drought to maintain or achieve long-term resource 

productivity (Appendix F).
 

LG-CA-MA- 7. Allow spring and early summer livestock grazing 

periodically in big game winter range at levels to improve browse 

production. 

LG-CA-MA- 8. Manage livestock grazing to move riparian and 

wetland conditions toward goals and objectives in the Riparian Areas 

and Wetlands section and to increase streambank stability relative to 

stream types by following guidelines in the ARMS (Appendix D). 

August 2010 2-126 
Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

LG-CA-MA- 9. When livestock are moved between pastures or 

allotments through riparian zones, stream crossings would be 

perpendicular to the riparian zone, where practical; trailing must be 

supervised by the permitee to ensure livestock do not remain in the 

riparian zone before or after the crossing. 

Range Infrastructure

See objective specific to each 

alternative. 

Range Infrastructure

LG-CA-MA- 10. Guidelines and management actions for range 

infrastructure apply to watering sites, fences, and corrals within
 

WSAs, consistent with the IMP.
 

LG-CA-MA- 11. Follow BLM-approved design features and 

construction and maintenance practices for range infrastructure.
 

LG-CA-MA- 12. Range infrastructure would be consistent with the
 

guidelines in the ARMS (Appendix D). 

LG-CA-MA- 13. Maintain range infrastructure in proper working 

condition. If infrastructure is no longer necessary, it may be removed. 

LG-CA-MA- 14. Minimize disturbance at developed springs by using 

existing routes for access, redesigning the spring development, or 

limiting maintenance or reconstruction activities to areas disturbed 

during previous construction or to areas outside the wetland. 

LG-CA-MA- 15. Modify fences to comply with BLM standards for 

wildlife (Karsky, 1999). Fences would be modified according to the
 

following priority order: 

 Key sage-grouse habitat, 

 Big game winter range, 

 Saylor Creek HMA, and
 

 The remainder of the planning area.
 

LG-CA-MA- 16. Fence reservoirs and provide water for livestock use 

outside the fence if necessary for improving wildlife habitat around a
 

reservoir. Consider wildlife habitat needs when reservoir size 

determinations are made.
 

LG-CA-MA- 17. For permittee-maintained projects, the authorized
 

officer would be notified prior to initiating work that requires the use 

of heavy equipment so that appropriate measures are adopted to 

protect resources.
 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

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. 

2-127 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

Objectives 

Forage and Grazing 

Management Practices 

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. 

LG-I-O- 2. In non-native 

perennial communities including 

Sandberg/non-native areas (see 

Map 9), manage livestock 

grazing to maintain and improve 

perennial plant species diversity 

and abundance, taking into 

account sage-grouse and big 

game habitat needs. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Allocations 

Forage and Grazing Management Practices 

LG-I-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be available for 

livestock grazing (1,381,000 acres). The following areas would not 

be available for livestock grazing (84,000 acres): 

 Canyons associated with the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers and 

Salmon Falls Creek, 

 Middle Snake ACEC except the Asquena pasture, 

 Wildlife Tracts, 

 Reference areas, 

 Areas open to cross-country motorized vehicle use, and 

 Areas not contained within grazing allotments. 

See Map 45 for locations. 

LG-I-A- 2. Allocate vegetation production as follows: 

	 Native perennial grass production 

- 65% to 75% to watershed and wildlife 

- Less than 1% to wild horses 

- 25% to 35% to livestock 

	 Non-native perennial grass production 

- 60% to 70% to watershed and wildlife 

- Less than 1% to wild horses 

- 30% to 40% to livestock 

 Annual grass production 

- 70% to 80% to watershed and wildlife 

- 20% to 30% to livestock 

	 Shrub and forb production 

- 89% to 92% to watershed and wildlife 

- 8% to 11% to livestock 

These vegetation allocations would be implemented during the 

permit renewal process. The purpose of allocating vegetation is to 

determine the total AUMs available for livestock grazing in the 

planning area. Allocation percentages are not the same as utilization, 

as the allocation is used to identify the total number of AUMs for 

livestock, while utilization identifies the amount of vegetation used by 

livestock in a specific area. Allocation is not intended to prescribe 

what livestock can actually consume. Livestock use of specific 

vegetation types would be managed through the implementation of 

grazing use indicators developed on an allotment-specific basis. 

LG-I-A- 3. Forage available for livestock use would likely change as 

the RMP is implemented, although allocation percentages would 

remain the same. Changes to AUMs in the future would be 

determined after adequate monitoring and site-specific NEPA 

analysis through future permit renewal processes. 

Management Actions 

Forage and Grazing Management Practices 

LG-I-MA- 1. Utilization would be determined on a case-by-case basis 

to meet objectives in the Livestock Grazing, Upland Vegetation, 

Riparian Areas and Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife, and Special Status 

Species sections. 

LG-I-MA- 2. Reserve Common Allotments would not be established. 

August 2010	 2-128 
 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

LG-I-MA- 3. TNR would be allowed except in the following areas: 

 Pastures containing areas within a WSA boundary, 

 The riparian pasture of the Lower Saylor Creek Allotment in the 

Sand Point ACEC, 

 Pastures comprised of more than 50% big game winter range, or 

 Pastures comprised of more than 50% native communities (by 

cover) excluding Sandberg/non-native areas. 

LG-I-MA- 4. Criteria for issuing TNR in a particular pasture would 

include: 

 TNR may be allowed in years where additional forage for 

livestock is temporarily available, as determined by utilization 

levels, 

 TNR must be consistent with the drought management 

guidelines, 

	 TNR may not be allowed if grazing use criteria are exceeded in 

any pasture in planning area allotments within the operation of 

the permittee, and 

	 TNR must be consistent with other resource objectives. 

LG-I-MA- 5. Manage livestock grazing to provide a variety of residual 

cover heights to meet the needs of the ground-nesting birds present 

in an allotment. 

LG-I-MA- 6. Follow BLM guidelines livestock grazing management 

for managing sage-grouse habitat (e.g., 2006 Conservation Plan for 

the Greater Sage-grouse in Idaho, Owyhee County and Jarbidge 

Local Working Group Sage-grouse Plans). 

LG-I-MA- 7. Livestock grazing may be considered on a case-by-case 

basis in a portion of big game winter range in native shrubland 

communities during the winter (December through March). No date 

restrictions on livestock grazing in big game winter range in other 

vegetation communities would be made. 

LG-I-MA- 8. During big game calving, fawning, and lambing 

(Appendix H), livestock grazing management would provide 

adequate cover for big game species, appropriate to site potential. 

LG-I-MA- 9. Adjust livestock grazing in the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

so livestock seasons of use would not overlap bighorn sheep 

breeding and winter periods in those pastures that contain bighorn 

sheep habitat (Appendix H). 

LG-I-MA- 10. In aspen groves, grazing management would allow for 

natural regeneration with a diversity of vegetation species and age 

class. 

LG-I-MA- 11. Even though livestock grazing would not be authorized 

in the Jarbidge Canyon, trailing to the Wilkins Island Allotment would 

be permitted along the existing route across the East Fork of the 

Jarbidge River and up an un-named draw. Riders would be used to 

herd livestock to ensure livestock do not remain in the riparian zone 

after the crossing. 

2-129 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

LG-I-MA- 12. Targeted grazing could be used as a tool to help meet 

objectives in the Vegetation Communities, Noxious Weeds and 

Invasive Plants, and Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

sections. Targeted grazing would be used as a vegetation treatment 

and would not be part of permitted livestock grazing use; it can be 

used throughout the planning area, including in areas unavailable for 

permitted livestock grazing use. Targeted grazing treatments are 

localized, short-term intensive grazing use to reduce fine fuels or 

reduce other undesirable vegetation. Targeted grazing could be 

accomplished using any kind of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, goats). 

Temporary water and fencing may be necessary to implement 

targeted grazing treatments. Most targeted grazing treatments for 

fuels reduction would occur in the late spring and early summer. 

Range Infrastructure

LG-I-O- 3. Manage (e.g., 

maintain, improve, build, realign, 

remove) range infrastructure at 

levels appropriate to the amount 

of livestock use to provide for 

efficient management of 

livestock grazing allotments, 

consistent with resource 

objectives. 

Range Infrastructure

LG-I-MA- 13. Consider installing or constructing new pipelines on a 

case-by-case basis where they would help meet resource objectives. 

New pipelines would not be allowed within WSAs; eligible, suitable, 

and designated WSRs; and ACECs. 

LG-I-MA- 14. Maintain existing pipelines for livestock or wild horse 

use. Modify any pipeline where monitoring determines the pipeline is 

causing resource objectives to not be met. 

LG-I-MA- 15. Consider installing or constructing new reservoirs or 

wells on a case-by-case basis where they would help meet resource 

objectives. 

LG-I-MA- 16. Maintain existing reservoirs or wells for livestock, 

wildlife, or wild horse use. Modify reservoirs or wells contributing to 

not meeting resource objectives, as identified through monitoring. 

LG-I-MA- 17. Consider new spring developments on a case-by-case 

basis. New spring developments must meet resource objectives, 

avoid or minimize ground disturbance, protect the spring source, and 

ensure adequate water to maintain the wetland. Other mitigation may 

be required to minimize impacts to cultural and natural resources 

and tribal rights, interests, and values. 

LG-I-MA- 18. Modify existing spring developments with wetlands 

rated as NF, FAR-DN, or FAR to improve wetland areas by 

protecting the spring source and ensuring adequate water to support 

spring hydrology and associated riparian vegetation. 

LG-I-MA- 19. Place minerals, supplements, new troughs, new 

reservoirs, and new holding facilities more than 300 feet from canyon 

rims and playas. Avoid placing salting, minerals, supplements, 

troughs, reservoirs, and holding facilities in the protective corridor of 

the Oregon NHT, Kelton Freight Road, or Toana Freight Road. 

Ensure salting, minerals, supplements, new troughs, new reservoirs, 

and new holding facilities are located to avoid conflicts with other 

cultural resources as well. 

LG-I-MA- 20. Adjust locations of livestock watering facilities and 

salting/supplements in sage-grouse and other upland game bird 

habitat on a case-by-case basis to provide adequate nesting and 

winter cover. 

August 2010 2-130 
 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

LG-I-MA- 21. Avoid placing new water developments in key sagegrouse habitat unless they would contribute to meeting resource 

objectives for sage-grouse. If a new water development is 

necessary, it should be located in a previously disturbed area. 

LG-I-MA- 22. Consider installing or constructing new fences on a 

case-by-case basis to meet resource objectives. 

LG-I-MA- 23. Remove fences that are not needed. Maintain fences 

to BLM specifications; the amount of fence in an allotment would be 

appropriate to objectives for livestock grazing and resource 

management. Modify, remove, or relocate fences contributing to not 

meeting resource objectives, as identified through monitoring. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

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. 

Objectives 

Forage and Grazing 

Management Practices 

LG-II-O- 1. In native plant 

communities excluding the 

Sandberg/non-native areas, 

manage livestock grazing to 

help maintain native plant 

species diversity and 

abundance, focusing on plant 

reproductive and physiological 

needs. 

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. 

Allocations 

Forage and Grazing Management Practices 

LG-II-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be available for 

livestock grazing (1,406,000 acres). The following areas would not 

be available for livestock grazing (59,000 acres): 

 Canyons associated with the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers and 

Salmon Falls Creek, 

 Reference areas, 

 Wildlife Tracts, and 

 Areas not contained within grazing allotments. 

See Map 46 for locations. 

LG-II-A- 2. Allocate vegetation production as follows: 

	 Native perennial grass production 

- 50% to 60% to watershed and wildlife 

- 40% to 50% to livestock 

	 Non-native perennial grass production 

- 40% to 50% to watershed and wildlife 

- 50% to 60% to livestock 

 Annual grass production 

- 20% to 30% to watershed and wildlife 

- 70% to 80% to livestock 

	 Shrub and forb production 

- 84% to 88% to watershed and wildlife 

- 12% to 16% to livestock 

These vegetation allocations would be implemented during the 

permit renewal process. Allocations would only be adjusted during 

permit renewal based on available date. The purpose of allocating 

vegetation is to determine the total AUMs available for livestock 

grazing in the planning area. Allocation percentages are not the 

same as utilization, as the allocation is used to identify the total 

number of AUMs for livestock, while utilization identifies the amount 

of vegetation used by livestock in a specific area. Allocation is not 

intended to prescribe what livestock can actually consume. Livestock 

2-131 August 2010 
 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Livestock Grazing 

use of specific vegetation types would be managed through the 

implementation of grazing use indicators developed on an allotmentspecific basis. 

LG-II-A- 3. Forage available for livestock use would likely change as 

the RMP is implemented, although allocation percentages would 

remain the same. Changes to AUMs in the future would be 

determined after adequate monitoring and site-specific NEPA 

analysis through future permit renewal processes. 

Management Actions 

Forage and Grazing Management Practices 

LG-II-MA- 1. Utilization would be determined on a case-by-case 

basis to meet objectives in the Livestock Grazing, Upland 

Vegetation, Riparian Areas and Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife, and 

Special Status Species sections. 

LG-II-MA- 2. Reserve Common Allotments may be established to 

facilitate vegetation treatment projects and to provide increased 

livestock grazing management flexibility. Reserve Common 

Allotments may be established on acquired lands; in allotments 

where permits are relinquished or cancelled; or by agreement with a 

permittee; however, permits would not be cancelled for the purpose 

of establishing a Reserve Common Allotment. Reserve Common 

Allotments may be created from whole or partial allotments and can 

be permanent or temporary. 

LG-II-MA- 3. Considerations for selecting areas to be used as 

Reserve Common Allotments include: 

 Whether the area has special management concerns, such as 

habitat for Type 1 BLM Sensitive species, slickspot peppergrass, 

or redband trout; noxious weeds or invasive plants; or wild 

horses; 

	 Whether the area has intermingled private or State lands; and 

	 Whether the area can sustain grazing use without significant 

resource impacts. 

LG-II-MA- 4. No more than 10% of the AUMs for livestock within the 

planning area can be within Reserve Common Allotments without 

approval from the BLM State Director. 

LG-II-MA- 5. Priority for using Reserve Common Allotments would 

be as follows: 

 Permittees and lessees whose normally permitted allotments are 

temporarily unavailable due to wildland fire, 

	 Permittees and lessees whose normally permitted allotments are 

under an approved vegetation treatment project (e.g., 

restoration, fuels treatments), and 

	 Permittees and lessees whose normally permitted allotments are 

temporarily unavailable due to insect outbreaks 

LG-II-MA- 6. Permittees within the planning area would have the 

highest priority for using Reserve Common Allotments; permittees 

within the Twin Falls District would have second priority. 

August 2010 2-132 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

LG-II-MA- 7. When a Reserve Common Allotment is established, a 

management plan for the allotment will be developed to ensure 

achievement of or movement towards meeting Idaho Standards for 

Rangeland Health. 

LG-II-MA- 8. TNR would be allowed except in pastures containing 

areas within a WSA boundary. Criteria for issuing TNR in a particular 

pasture would include: 

 TNR may be allowed in years where additional forage for 

livestock is temporarily available, as determined by utilization 

levels, 

 TNR must be consistent with the drought management 

guidelines, 

 TNR may not be allowed if grazing use criteria are exceeded in 

any pasture in planning area allotments within the operation of 

the permittee, and 

 TNR must be consistent with other resource objectives. 

LG-II-MA- 9. Manage livestock grazing in allotments containing more 

than 50% native plant communities to provide a variety of residual 

cover heights to meet the needs of the ground-nesting birds present 

in an allotment. 

LG-II-MA- 10. Follow BLM guidelines for livestock grazing 

management for managing sage-grouse habitat (e.g., 2006 

Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage-Grouse in Idaho, Owyhee 

County and Jarbidge Local Working Group Sage-grouse Plans). 

LG-II-MA- 11. No date restrictions on livestock grazing in big game 

winter range would be made. 

LG-II-MA- 12. Even though livestock grazing would not be 

authorized in the Jarbidge Canyons, trailing to the Wilkins Island 

Allotment would be permitted along the existing route across the 

East Fork of the Jarbidge River and up an un-named draw. Riders 

would be used to herd livestock to ensure livestock do not remain in 

the riparian zone after the crossing. 

LG-II-MA- 13. Targeted grazing could be used as a tool to help meet 

objectives in the Vegetation Communities, Noxious Weeds and 

Invasive Plants, and Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

sections. Targeted grazing would be used as a vegetation treatment 

and would not be part of permitted livestock grazing use; it can be 

used throughout the planning area, including in areas unavailable for 

permitted livestock grazing use. Targeted grazing treatments are 

localized, short-term intensive grazing use to reduce fine fuels or 

reduce other undesirable vegetation. Targeted grazing could be 

accomplished using any kind of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, goats). 

Temporary water and fencing may be necessary to implement 

targeted grazing treatments. Most targeted grazing treatments for 

fuels reduction would occur in the late spring and early summer. 

2-133 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Livestock Grazing 

Range Infrastructure

LG-II-O- 3. Manage (e.g., 

maintain, improve, build, realign, 

remove) range infrastructure at 

levels appropriate to the amount 

of livestock use to provide for 

efficient management of 

livestock grazing allotments. 

Range Infrastructure

LG-II-MA- 14. Consider installing or constructing new pipelines on a 

case-by-case basis to promote livestock distribution or meet 

resource objectives. 

LG-II-MA- 15. Maintain existing pipelines for livestock use. Modify 

any pipeline where monitoring determines the pipeline is causing 

resource objectives to not be met. 

LG-II-MA- 16. Consider installing or constructing new reservoirs or 

wells on a case-by-case basis to promote livestock distribution or 

meet resource objectives. 

LG-II-MA- 17. Maintain existing reservoirs or wells for livestock use. 

Modify reservoirs or wells contributing to not meeting resource 

objectives, as identified through monitoring. 

LG-II-MA- 18. Consider new spring developments on a case-by-case 

basis. New spring developments must meet resource objectives, 

avoid or minimize ground disturbance, protect the spring source, and 

ensure adequate water to maintain the wetland. Other mitigation may 

be required to minimize impacts to cultural and natural resources 

and tribal rights, interests, and values. 

LG-II-MA- 19. Modify spring developments with wetlands rated as 

NF or FAR-DN to improve wetland areas by protecting the spring 

source and ensuring adequate water to support spring hydrology and 

associated riparian vegetation. 

LG-II-MA- 20. Ensure salting, minerals, supplements, new troughs, 

new reservoirs, and new holding facilities are located to avoid 

conflicts with cultural resources. 

LG-II-MA- 21. Adjust locations of livestock watering facilities and 

salting/supplements in sage-grouse habitat on a case-by-case basis 

to provide adequate nesting and winter cover. 

LG-II-MA- 22. Consider installing or constructing new fences on a 

case-by-case basis to promote livestock distribution and 

management or to meet resource objectives. 

LG-II-MA- 23. Maintain fences to BLM specifications; the amount of 

fence in an allotment would be appropriate to objectives for livestock 

grazing and resource management. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

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. 

August 2010 2-134 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

Objectives 

Forage and Grazing 

Management Practices 

LG-III-O- 1. In native plant 

communities including the 

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. 

LG-III-O- 2. Manage livestock 

grazing to reduce fuels in nonnative perennial communities. 

Allocations 

Forage and Grazing Management Practices 

LG-III-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be available for 

livestock grazing (1,404,000 acres). The following areas would not 

be available for livestock grazing (61,000 acres): 

 Canyons associated with the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers and 

Salmon Falls Creek, 

 Reference areas, 

 Wildlife Tracts, and 

 Areas not contained within grazing allotments. 

See Map 47 for locations. 

LG-III-A- 2. Allocate vegetation production as follows: 

 Native perennial grass production 

- 55% to 65% to watershed and wildlife 

- Less than 1% to wild horses 

- 35% to 45% to livestock 

 Non-native perennial grass production 

- 50% to 60% to watershed and wildlife 

- Less than 1% to wild horses 

- 40% to 50% to livestock 

 Annual grass production 

- 50% to 60% to watershed and wildlife 

- 40% to 50% to livestock 

 Shrub and forb production 

- 86% to 89% to watershed and wildlife 

- 11% to 14% to livestock 

These vegetation allocations would be implemented during the 

permit renewal process. The purpose of allocating vegetation is to 

determine the total AUMs available for livestock grazing in the 

planning area. Allocation percentages are not the same as utilization, 

as the allocation is used to identify the total number of AUMs for 

livestock, while utilization identifies the amount of vegetation used by 

livestock in a specific area. Allocation is not intended to prescribe 

what livestock can actually consume. Livestock use of specific 

vegetation types would be managed through the implementation of 

grazing use indicators developed on an allotment-specific basis. 

LG-III-A- 3. Forage available for livestock use would likely change as 

the RMP is implemented, although allocation percentages would 

remain the same. Changes to AUMs in the future would be 

determined after adequate monitoring and site-specific NEPA 

analysis through future permit renewal processes. 

Management Actions 

Forage and Grazing Management Practices 

LG-III-MA- 1. Allotment and pasture boundaries may be modified to 

facilitate the use of permitted livestock grazing to achieve fuels 

reduction objectives. Modifications may include but not be limited to 

aggregating allotments into larger allotments and realigning pasture 

boundary fences to concentrate livestock use for fuels reduction. 

2-135 August 2010 
 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Livestock Grazing 

LG-III-MA- 2. Utilization would be determined on a case-by-case 

basis to meet objectives in the Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management, Riparian Areas and Wetlands, and Special Status 

Species sections. 

LG-III-MA- 3. Reserve Common Allotments may be established to 

facilitate vegetation treatment projects and to provide increased 

livestock grazing management flexibility. Reserve Common 

Allotments may be established on acquired lands; in allotments 

where permits are relinquished, sold, or cancelled; or by agreement 

with a permittee; however, permits would not be cancelled for the 

purpose of establishing a Reserve Common Allotment. Reserve 

Common Allotments may be created from whole or partial allotments 

and can be permanent or temporary. 

LG-III-MA- 4. Considerations for selecting areas to be used as 

Reserve Common Allotments include: 

 Whether the area has special management concerns, such as 

habitat for Type 1 BLM Sensitive species, slickspot peppergrass, 

or redband trout; noxious weeds or invasive plants; or wild 

horses; 

	 Whether the area has intermingled private and/or State lands; 

and 

	 Whether the area can sustain grazing use without significant 

resource impacts. 

LG-III-MA- 5. No more than 10% of the AUMs for livestock within the 

planning area can be within Reserve Common Allotments without 

approval from the BLM State Director. 

LG-III-MA- 6. Priority for using Reserve Common Allotments would 

be as follows: 

 Permittees and lessees whose normally permitted allotments are 

temporarily unavailable due to wildland fire, 

	 Permittees and lessees whose normally permitted allotments are 

under an approved vegetation treatment project (e.g., 

restoration, fuels treatments), and 

	 Permittees and lessees whose normally permitted allotments are 

temporarily unavailable due to insect outbreaks 

LG-III-MA- 7. Permittees within the planning area would have the 

highest priority for using Reserve Common Allotments; permittees 

within the Twin Falls District would have second priority. 

LG-III-MA- 8. When a Reserve Common Allotment is established, a 

management plan for the allotment will be developed to ensure 

achievement of or movement towards meeting Idaho Standards for 

Rangeland Health. 

LG-III-MA- 9. TNR would be allowed except in the following areas: 

 Pastures containing areas within a WSA boundary, 

 The riparian pasture of the Lower Saylor Creek Allotment in the 

Sand Point ACEC, 

	 Pastures comprised of more than 50% big game winter range, or 

	 Pastures comprised of more than 50% native communities (by 

cover) excluding Sandberg/non-native areas. 

August 2010	 2-136 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

LG-III-MA- 10. Criteria for issuing TNR in a particular pasture would 

include: 

 TNR may be allowed in years where additional forage for 

livestock is temporarily available, as determined by utilization 

levels, 

 TNR must be consistent with the drought management 

guidelines, 

 TNR may not be allowed if grazing use criteria are exceeded in 

any pasture in planning area allotments within the operation of 

the permittee, and 

 TNR must be consistent with other resource objectives. 

LG-III-MA- 11. Manage livestock grazing in allotments containing 

more than 50% native plant communities to provide a variety of 

residual cover heights to meet the needs of the ground-nesting birds 

present in an allotment. 

LG-III-MA- 12. Follow BLM guidelines for livestock grazing 

management for managing sage-grouse habitat (e.g., 2006 

Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage-Grouse in Idaho, Owyhee 

County and Jarbidge Local Working Group Sage-grouse Plans). 

LG-III-MA- 13. Livestock grazing may be considered on a case-bycase basis in a portion of big game winter range in native shrubland 

communities during the winter (December through March). No date 

restrictions on livestock grazing in big game winter range in other 

vegetation communities would be made. 

LG-III-MA- 14. Adjust livestock grazing south of Sheep Creek so 

livestock seasons of use would not overlap bighorn sheep breeding 

and winter periods in those pastures that contain bighorn sheep 

habitat (Appendix H). 

LG-III-MA- 15. In aspen groves, grazing management would allow 

for natural regeneration with a diversity of vegetation species and 

age class. 

LG-III-MA- 16. Even though livestock grazing would not be 

authorized in the Jarbidge Canyons, trailing to the Wilkins Island 

Allotment would be permitted along the existing route across the 

East Fork of the Jarbidge River and up an un-named draw. Riders 

would be used to herd livestock to ensure livestock do not remain in 

the riparian zone after the crossing. 

LG-III-MA- 17. Targeted grazing could be used as a tool to help 

meet objectives in the Vegetation Communities, Noxious Weeds and 

Invasive Plants, and Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

sections. Targeted grazing would be used as a vegetation treatment 

and would not be part of permitted livestock grazing use; it can be 

used throughout the planning area, including in areas unavailable for 

permitted livestock grazing use. Targeted grazing treatments are 

localized, short-term intensive grazing use to reduce fine fuels or 

reduce other undesirable vegetation. Targeted grazing could be 

accomplished using any kind of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, goats). 

Temporary water and fencing may be necessary to implement 

2-137 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

targeted grazing treatments. Most targeted grazing treatments for 

fuels reduction would occur in the late spring and early summer. 

Range Infrastructure

LG-III-O- 3. Manage (e.g. 

maintain, improve, build, realign, 

remove) 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. 

Range Infrastructure

LG-III-MA- 18. Consider installing or constructing new pipelines on a 

case-by-case basis where they would help meet resource objectives 

or to aid in fire suppression. 

LG-III-MA- 19. Maintain existing pipelines for livestock and wild 

horse use and fire suppression. Modify any pipeline where 

monitoring determines the pipeline is causing resource objectives to 

not be met. 

LG-III-MA- 20. Consider installing or constructing new reservoirs or 

wells on a case-by-case basis to meet resource objectives or aid in 

fire suppression. 

LG-III-MA- 21. Maintain existing reservoirs or wells for livestock or 

wild horse use and fire suppression. Modify reservoirs and wells 

contributing to not meeting objectives for resources or fire 

suppression, as identified through monitoring. 

LG-III-MA- 22. Consider new spring developments on a case-bycase basis. New spring developments must meet resource 

objectives, avoid or minimize ground disturbance, protect the spring 

source, and ensure adequate water to maintain the wetland. Other 

mitigation may be required to minimize impacts to cultural and 

natural resources and tribal rights, interests, and values. 

LG-III-MA- 23. Modify spring developments with wetlands rated as 

NF, FAR-DN, or FAR to improve wetland areas by protecting the 

spring source and ensuring adequate water to support spring 

hydrology and associated riparian vegetation. 

LG-III-MA- 24. Place salting, minerals, supplements, new troughs, 

new reservoirs, and new holding facilities more than 300 feet from 

canyon rims and playas. Avoid placing salting, minerals, 

supplements, troughs, reservoirs, and holding facilities in the 

protective corridor of the Oregon NHT, Kelton Freight Road, or 

Toana Freight Road. Ensure salting, minerals, supplements, new 

troughs, new reservoirs, and new holding facilities in other areas are 

located to avoid conflicts with other cultural resources as well. 

LG-III-MA- 25. Adjust locations of livestock watering facilities and 

salting/supplements in sage-grouse habitat on a case-by-case basis 

to provide adequate nesting and winter cover. 

LG-III-MA- 26. Consider installing or constructing new fences on a 

case-by-case basis to meet resource objectives. 

LG-III-MA- 27. Remove fences that are not needed. Maintain fences 

to BLM specifications; the amount of fence in an allotment would be 

appropriate to objectives for livestock grazing and resource 

management. Modify, remove, or relocate fences contributing to not 

meeting resource objectives, as identified through monitoring. 

August 2010 2-138 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

LG-IV-G- 1. Provide for livestock grazing through application of proper grazing management to support 

restoration of the resiliency of ecosystem structure and function and to reduce fragmentation of habitat for 

sage-grouse and other native species. 

Objectives 

Forage and Grazing 

Management Practices 

LG-IV-O- 1. In native plant 

communities including the 

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. 

LG-IV-O- 2. In non-native 

perennial communities, manage 

livestock grazing to achieve 

restoration objectives outlined in 

the Upland Vegetation section. 

Allocations 

Forage and Grazing Management Practices 

LG-IV-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be available for 

livestock grazing (1,320,000 acres in Alternative IV-A; 1,352,000 

acres in Alternative IV-B, the Preferred Alternative). The following 

areas would not be available for livestock grazing (145,000 acres in 

Alternative IV-A; 113,000 acres in Alternative IV-B, the Preferred 

Alternative): 

 Canyons or riparian corridors associated with the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers and the following creeks: Deer (NV), Dave, 

Rocky Canyon, and Salmon Falls; 

 Inside Desert ACEC; 

 Wildlife Tracts; 

 Reference areas; and 

 Areas not contained within grazing allotments. 

See Maps 48 and 49 for locations. 

LG-IV-A- 2. Allocate vegetation production as follows: 

 Native perennial grass production 

- 75% to 85% to watershed and wildlife 

- Less than1% to wild horses 

- 15% to 25% to livestock 

 Non-native perennial grass production 

- 70% to 80% to watershed and wildlife 

- Less than1% to wild horses 

- 20% to 30% to livestock 

 Annual grass production 

- 100% to watershed and wildlife 

 Shrub and forb production 

- 100% to watershed & wildlife 

These vegetation allocations would be implemented during the 

permit renewal process. The purpose of allocating vegetation is to 

determine the total AUMs available for livestock grazing in the 

planning area. Allocation percentages are not the same as utilization, 

as the allocation is used to identify the total number of AUMs for 

livestock, while utilization identifies the amount of vegetation used by 

livestock in a specific area. Allocation is not intended to prescribe 

what livestock can actually consume. Livestock use of specific 

vegetation types would be managed through the implementation of 

grazing use indicators developed on an allotment-specific basis. 

LG-IV-A- 3. Forage available for livestock use would likely change as 

the RMP is implemented, although allocation percentages would 

remain the same. Changes to AUMs in the future would be 

determined after adequate monitoring and site-specific NEPA 

analysis through future permit renewal processes. 

2-139 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Livestock Grazing 

Management Actions 

Forage and Grazing Management Practices 

LG-IV-MA- 1. Utilization would be determined on a case-by-case 

basis to meet objectives in the Upland Vegetation, Riparian Areas 

and Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife, and Special Status Species 

sections. 

LG-IV-MA- 2. Reserve Common Allotments may be established to 

facilitate vegetation treatment projects and to provide increased 

livestock grazing management flexibility. Reserve Common 

Allotments may be established on acquired lands; in allotments 

where permits are relinquished, sold, or cancelled; or by agreement 

with a permittee; however, permits would not be cancelled for the 

purpose of establishing a Reserve Common Allotment. Reserve 

Common Allotments may be created from whole or partial allotments 

and can be permanent or temporary. 

LG-IV-MA- 3. Considerations for selecting areas to be used as 

Reserve Common Allotments include: 

 Whether the area has special management concerns, such as 

habitat for Type 1 Sensitive species, slickspot peppergrass, or 

redband trout; noxious weeds or invasive plants; or wild horses; 

	 Whether the area has intermingled private and/or State lands; 

and 

	 Whether the area can sustain grazing use without significant 

resource impacts. 

LG-IV-MA- 4. No more than 10% of the AUMs for livestock within the 

planning area can be within Reserve Common Allotments without 

approval from the State Director. 

LG-IV-MA- 5. Priority for using Reserve Common Allotments would 

be as follows: 

 Permittees and lessees whose normally permitted allotments are 

temporarily unavailable due to wildland fire, 

	 Permittees and lessees whose normally permitted allotments are 

under an approved vegetation treatment project (e.g., 

restoration, fuels treatments), and 

	 Permittees and lessees whose normally permitted allotments are 

temporarily unavailable due to insect outbreaks 

LG-IV-MA- 6. Permittees within the planning area would have the 

highest priority for using Reserve Common Allotments; permittees 

within the Twin Falls District would have second priority. 

LG-IV-MA- 7. When a Reserve Common Allotment is established, a 

management plan for the allotment will be developed to ensure 

achievement of or movement towards meeting Idaho Standards for 

Rangeland Health. 

LG-IV-MA- 8. TNR would be allowed except in the following areas: 

 Pastures containing areas within a WSA boundary, 

 The riparian pasture of the Lower Saylor Creek Allotment in the 

Sand Point ACEC, 

 Pastures comprised of more than 50% big game winter range, or 

August 2010	 2-140 
 

 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

	 Pastures comprised of more than 25% native communities (by 

cover) excluding Sandberg/non-native areas. 

LG-IV-MA- 9. Criteria for issuing TNR in a particular pasture would 

include: 

 TNR may be allowed in years where additional forage for 

livestock is temporarily available, as determined by utilization 

levels, 

 TNR must be consistent with the drought management 

guidelines, 

 TNR may not be allowed if grazing use criteria are exceeded in 

any pasture in planning area allotments within the operation of 

the permittee, and 

 TNR must be consistent with other resource objectives. 

LG-IV-MA- 10. Manage livestock grazing to provide a variety of 

residual cover heights to meet the needs of the ground-nesting birds 

present in an allotment. 

LG-IV-MA- 11. Follow BLM guidelines for livestock grazing 

management for managing sage-grouse habitat (e.g., 2006 

Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage-Grouse in Idaho, Owyhee 

County and Jarbidge Local Working Group Sage-grouse Plans). 

LG-IV-MA- 12. Livestock grazing may be considered on a case-bycase basis in a portion of big game winter range in native shrubland 

communities during the winter (December through March). No date 

restrictions on livestock grazing in big game winter range in other 

vegetation communities would be made. 

LG-IV-MA- 13. During big game calving, fawning, and lambing 

(Appendix H), livestock grazing management would provide 

adequate cover for big game species, appropriate to site potential. 

LG-IV-MA- 14. Adjust livestock grazing so livestock seasons of use 

would not overlap bighorn sheep breeding and winter periods in 

those pastures that contain bighorn sheep habitat (Appendix H). 

LG-IV-MA- 15. In aspen groves, grazing management would allow 

for natural regeneration with a diversity of vegetation species and 

age class. 

LG-IV-MA- 16. Even though livestock grazing would not be 

authorized in the Jarbidge Canyons, trailing to the Wilkins Island 

Allotment would be permitted on existing roads using riders to herd 

livestock. 

LG-IV-MA- 17. Targeted grazing could be used as a tool to help 

meet objectives in the Vegetation Communities, Noxious Weeds and 

Invasive Plants, and Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

sections. Targeted grazing would be used as a vegetation treatment 

and would not be part of permitted livestock grazing use; it can be 

used throughout the planning area, including in areas unavailable for 

permitted livestock grazing use. Targeted grazing treatments are 

localized, short-term intensive grazing use to reduce fine fuels or 

reduce other undesirable vegetation. Targeted grazing could be 

2-141 August 2010 
 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

accomplished using any kind of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, goats). 

Temporary water and fencing may be necessary to implement 

targeted grazing treatments. Most targeted grazing treatments for 

fuels reduction would occur in the late spring and early summer. 

Range Infrastructure

LG-IV-O- 3. Manage (e.g., 

maintain, improve, build, realign, 

remove) range infrastructure at 

levels appropriate to the amount 

of livestock use to provide for 

efficient management of 

livestock grazing allotments and 

support resource objectives. 

Range Infrastructure

LG-IV-MA- 18. Consider installing or constructing new pipelines on a 

case-by-case basis where they would help meet resource objectives. 

New pipelines would not be allowed within WSAs; eligible, suitable, 

and designated WSRs; and ACECs. 

LG-IV-MA- 19. Maintain existing pipelines for livestock or wild horse 

use. Modify any pipeline where monitoring determines the pipeline is 

causing resource objectives to not be met. 

LG-IV-MA- 20. Consider installing or constructing new reservoirs or 

wells on a case-by-case basis where they would help meet resource 

objectives. 

LG-IV-MA- 21. Maintain existing reservoirs or wells for livestock, 

wildlife, or wild horse use. Modify reservoirs or wells contributing to 

not meeting resource objectives, as identified through monitoring. 

LG-IV-MA- 22. Consider new spring developments on a case-bycase basis. New spring developments must meet resource 

objectives, avoid or minimize ground disturbance, protect the spring 

source, and ensure adequate water to maintain the wetland. Other 

mitigation may be required to minimize impacts to cultural and 

natural resources and tribal rights, interests, and values. 

LG-IV-MA- 23. Modify spring developments with wetlands rated as 

NF, FAR-DN, or FAR to improve wetland areas by protecting the 

spring source and ensuring adequate water to support spring 

hydrology and associated riparian vegetation. 

LG-IV-MA- 24. Place salting, minerals, supplements, new holding 

facilities, or new troughs or reservoirs more than 300 feet away from 

playas, canyon rims, and the protective corridors of the Oregon NHT, 

Kelton Freight Road, or Toana Freight Road. Ensure salting, 

minerals, supplements, new troughs, new reservoirs, and new 

holding facilities in other areas are located to avoid conflicts with 

other cultural resources as well. 

LG-IV-MA- 25. Adjust locations of livestock watering facilities and 

salting/supplements in sage-grouse and other upland game bird 

habitat on a case-by-case basis to provide adequate nesting and 

winter cover. 

LG-IV-MA- 26. Avoid placing new water developments in sagegrouse habitat unless they would contribute to meeting resource 

objectives for sage-grouse. If a new water development is 

necessary, it should be located in a previously disturbed area. 

LG-IV-MA- 27. Consider installing or constructing fences on a caseby-case basis to meet resource objectives. 

August 2010 2-142 
 


 


 


 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

LG-IV-MA- 28. Remove fences that are not needed. Maintain fences 

to BLM specifications; the amount of fence in an allotment would be 

appropriate to objectives for livestock grazing and resource 

management. Modify, remove, or relocate fences contributing to not 

meeting resource objectives, as identified through monitoring. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

LG-V-G- 1. Provide for livestock grazing through application of proper grazing management to move 

vegetation toward historic plant communities that provide habitat for sage-grouse and other special status 

species. 

Objectives 

Forage and Grazing 

Management Practices 

LG-V-O- 1. In native plant 

communities including the 

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. 

LG-V-O- 2. In non-native 

perennial communities, manage 

livestock grazing to maintain 

and improve shrub cover for 

sage-grouse. 

Allocations 

Forage and Grazing Management Practices 

LG-V-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be available for 

livestock grazing (1,156,000 acres). The following areas would be 

not available for livestock grazing (309,000 acres): 

 Canyons or riparian corridors associated with the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers and the following creeks: Upper Cedar, Deer 

(ID), Deer (NV), Clover, Rocky Canyon, Flat, Shack, Dave, 

China, and Salmon Falls; 

 Middle Snake, Sand Point, and Lower Bruneau Canyon ACECs; 

 The Brown's Bench/China Mountain area; 

 Wildlife Tracts; 

 Reference areas; and
 

 Areas not contained within grazing allotments.
 

See Map 50 for locations. 

LG-V-A- 2. Allocate vegetation production as follows:
 

	 Native perennial grass production 

- 80% to 90% to watershed and wildlife 

- Less than1% to wild horses 

- 10% to 20% to livestock 

	 Non-native perennial grass production 

- 80% to 90% to watershed and wildlife 

- Less than 1% to wild horses 

- 10% to 20% to livestock 

 Annual grass production 

- 100% to watershed and wildlife 

 Shrub and forb production 

- 100% to watershed & wildlife 

These vegetation allocations would be implemented during the 

permit renewal process. The purpose of allocating vegetation is to 

determine the total AUMs available for livestock grazing in the 

planning area. Allocation percentages are not the same as utilization, 

as the allocation is used to identify the total number of AUMs for 

livestock, while utilization identifies the amount of vegetation used by 

livestock in a specific area. Allocation is not intended to prescribe 

what livestock can actually consume. Livestock use of specific 

vegetation types would be managed through the implementation of 

grazing use indicators developed on an allotment-specific basis. 

LG-V-A- 3. Forage available for livestock use would likely change as 

the RMP is implemented, although allocation percentages would 

2-143 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Livestock Grazing 

remain the same. Changes to AUMs in the future would be 

determined after adequate monitoring and site-specific NEPA 

analysis through future permit renewal processes. 

Management Actions 

Forage and Grazing Management Practices 

LG-V-MA- 1. Utilization would be determined on a case-by-case 

basis to meet objectives in the Upland Vegetation, Riparian Areas 

and Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife, and Special Status Species 

sections. 

LG-V-MA- 2. Forage on acquired lands and in allotments where 

permits are relinquished, sold, or cancelled would be held for the life 

of the plan for wildlife habitat and watershed protection. Reserve 

Common Allotments would not be established and new grazing 

permits would not be issued for these lands for the life of the plan. 

LG-V-MA- 3. TNR would not be issued. 

LG-V-MA- 4. Manage livestock grazing to provide a variety of 

residual cover heights to meet the needs of the ground-nesting birds 

present in an allotment. 

LG-V-MA- 5. Follow BLM guidelines for livestock grazing 

management for managing sage-grouse habitat (e.g., 2006 

Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage-Grouse in Idaho, Owyhee 

County and Jarbidge Local Working Group Sage-grouse Plans). 

LG-V-MA- 6. Livestock grazing would not be allowed in big game 

winter range during the winter (December through March). 

LG-V-MA- 7. Adjust livestock grazing so livestock seasons of use 

would not overlap bighorn sheep breeding and winter periods in 

those pastures that contain bighorn sheep habitat (Appendix H). 

LG-V-MA- 8. In aspen groves, grazing management would allow for 

natural regeneration with a diversity of vegetation species and age 

class. 

LG-V-MA- 9. Even though livestock grazing would not be authorized 

in the Jarbidge Canyons, trailing to the Wilkins Island Allotment 

would be permitted on existing roads using riders to herd livestock. 

LG-V-MA- 10. Targeted grazing would not be allowed to be used as 

a tool to help meet objectives in the Vegetation Communities, 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants, and Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management sections 

August 2010 2-144 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Recreation 

Range Infrastructure

LG-V-O- 3. Manage (e.g., 

maintain, improve, build, realign, 

remove) range infrastructure at 

levels appropriate to the amount 

of livestock use to provide for 

efficient management of 

livestock grazing allotments and 

support resource objectives. 

2.4.2. Recreation 

Range Infrastructure

LG-V-MA- 11. New pipelines would not be authorized. 

LG-V-MA- 12. Maintain existing pipelines for livestock or wild horse 

use. Modify any pipeline where monitoring determines the pipeline is 

causing resource objectives to not be met. 

LG-V-MA- 13. Consider installing or constructing new reservoirs or 

wells on a case-by-case basis where they would help meet resource 

objectives. 

LG-V-MA- 14. Maintain existing reservoirs or wells for livestock, 

wildlife, or wild horse use. Modify reservoirs and wells contributing to 

not meeting resource objectives, as identified through monitoring. 

LG-V-MA- 15. New spring developments would not be authorized. 

LG-V-MA- 16. Modify spring developments with wetlands rated as 

NF, FAR-DN, or FAR to improve wetland areas by protecting the 

spring source and ensuring adequate water to support spring 

hydrology and associated riparian vegetation. 

LG-V-MA- 17. Place salting, minerals, supplements, new holding 

facilities, or new troughs or reservoirs more than 300 feet from 

playas, canyon rims, and the protective corridors of the Oregon NHT, 

Kelton Freight Road, or Toana Freight Road. Ensure salting, 

minerals, supplements, new troughs, new reservoirs, and new 

holding facilities in other areas are located to avoid conflicts with 

other cultural resources as well. 

LG-V-MA- 18. Adjust locations of livestock watering facilities and 

salting/supplements in sage-grouse and other upland game bird 

habitat on a case-by-case basis to provide adequate nesting and 

winter cover. 

LG-V-MA- 19. Avoid placing new water developments in sagegrouse habitat unless they would contribute to meeting resource 

objectives for sage-grouse. If a new water development is 

necessary, it should be located in a previously disturbed area. 

LG-V-MA- 20. Consider installing or constructing fences on a caseby-case basis to meet resource objectives. 

LG-V-MA- 21. Remove fences that are not needed. Maintain fences 

to BLM specifications; the amount of fence in an allotment would be 

appropriate to objectives for livestock grazing and resource 

management. Modify, remove, or relocate fences contributing to not 

meeting resource objective, as identified through monitoring. 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

2-145 August 2010 

 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Recreation 

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. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Allocations 

REC-NA-A- 1. Continue managing the following SRMAs: 

 Hagerman-Owsley Bridge SRMA (2,700 acres) 

 Oregon Trail SRMA (7,000 acres) 

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

 Jarbidge Forks SRMA (4,000 acres)
 

 Salmon Falls Creek SRMA (6,000 acres) 

Note: These SRMAs were never mapped in the 1987 RMP. 

REC-NA-O- 2. Designate and manage 5,000 acres of the forks of the 

Jarbidge River as an SRMA. 

REC-NA-O- 3. Manage MUA 9 for its recreational and off-road 

vehicle values and designate it as an SRMA (Map 4). 

Management Actions 

REC-NA-MA- 1. Develop Recreation Activity Management Plans for 

the Hagerman-Owsley Bridge, Oregon Trail, Bruneau-Jarbidge 

River, Jarbidge Forks, and Salmon Falls Creek SRMAs. 

REC-NA-MA- 2. Consider a variety of means to maintain or improve 

recreation opportunities. 

REC-NA-MA- 3. Some areas may be subject to special restrictions 

to protect resources or eliminate or reduce conflicts among uses. 

REC-NA-MA- 4. Provide and maintain recreation opportunities and 

facilities to meet existing or anticipated demand, for public safety, 

and to protect recreation resources. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

REC-CA-G- 1. Provide a variety of dispersed and developed recreational opportunities and experiences 

for visitors and residents while sustaining the recreation resource base and avoiding, minimizing, or 

compensating for resource impacts. 

Objective 

REC-CA-O- 1. Provide basic 

information on recreational 

opportunities in the Extensive 

Recreation Management Area 

(ERMA). Provide access and 

minimal facilities (e.g., signs, 

protective fences) as needed to 

ensure visitor health and safety, 

reduce user conflict, and protect 

resources. 

Allocations 

See allocations for specific alternatives. 

Management Actions 

REC-CA-MA- 1. Develop implementation and monitoring plans for 

SRMAs to address specific needs. 

REC-CA-MA- 2. Where appropriate, implement management 

methods to protect riparian resources, special status species, and 

wildlife habitat while enhancing recreation opportunities. 

Management methods may include, but not be limited to, limitation of 

visitor numbers, camping and travel controls, implementation of fees, 

and scheduling restrictions to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife 

during important seasonal periods. 

August 2010 2-146 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Recreation 

REC-CA-MA- 3. Recreation activities in riparian areas would follow 

the guidelines in the ARMS (Appendix D).
 

REC-CA-MA- 4. Dispersed camping would be allowed. Dispersed 

camping may be closed or limited seasonally or as impacts or 

environmental conditions warrant. 

REC-CA-MA- 5. If campground fees are implemented, they would 

not apply to Federally recognized tribes exercising treaty rights or 

engaging in traditional cultural practices. 

REC-CA-MA- 6. SRPs would be issued as a discretionary action as
 

a means to contribute to meeting management objectives, provide 

opportunities for economic activity, facilitate recreational use of the 

public lands, control visitor use, protect recreational and natural 

resources, and provide for the health and safety of visitors. Cost 

recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where 

appropriate.
 

REC-CA-MA- 7. All SRPs would contain standard stipulations
 

appropriate for the type of activity and may include additional 

stipulations necessary to protect lands or resources, reduce user 

conflicts, or minimize health and safety concerns (SRP Standard 

Form). 

REC-CA-MA- 8. There would be no mechanized or motorized events 

in WSAs while these areas are managed under the IMP. 

REC-CA-MA- 9. Consider SRPs within ACECs on a case-by-case
 

basis with mitigation for negative impacts to relevant and important
 

values. 

REC-CA-MA- 10. Include standard stipulations to minimize impacts 

to bighorn sheep during lambing periods in SRPs for whitewater 

recreation.
 

REC-CA-MA- 11. Where monitoring determines whitewater use is
 

impairing resources or recreational experience, additional 

management actions may be taken including, but not limited to: 

 Restriction on number of launches per day, 

 Implementation of fees for private use, 

 Limitations on number of persons per day, or 

 Other types of allocation systems.
 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

REC-I-O- 1. Manage 341,800 

acres as SRMAs and 1,031,700 

acres as an ERMA. 

Allocations 

REC-I-A- 1. Designate the following SRMAs: 

 Deadman/Yahoo SRMA (36,000 acres) 

 Balanced Rock SRMA (500 acres) 

 Little Pilgrim SRMA (300 acres) 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge SRMA (14,000 acres) 

 Jarbidge Forks SRMA (2,000 acres) 

2-147 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Recreation 

 Canyonlands SRMA (149,000 acres) 

 Jarbidge Foothills SRMA (135,000 acres) 

 Salmon Falls Reservoir SRMA (5,000 acres) 

See Map 51 for locations. 

REC-I-A- 2. Lands within the planning area that are not identified as 

an SRMA would be considered as an ERMA (1,031,700 acres). 

Management Actions 

REC-I-MA- 1. The Deadman/Yahoo SRMA would consist of four 

Recreation Management Zones (RMZs) with the following 

management: 

 Manage the Deadman, Pasadena, and Yahoo RMZs to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in off-road all-terrain vehicle 

(ATV) and motorcycle riding. 

	 Manage the Rosevear Gulch RMZ to provide opportunities for 

visitors to engage in motorized trail riding opportunities on a 

series of designated routes. 

REC-I-MA- 2. Manage the Balanced Rock SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in hiking, viewing wildlife and 

natural scenery, and non-motorized boating. 

REC-I-MA- 3. Manage the Little Pilgrim SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in sturgeon fishing and bird 

hunting. 

REC-I-MA- 4. Manage the Bruneau-Jarbidge SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in whitewater boating, hiking, 

fishing, hunting, viewing wildlife and natural scenery, and primitive 

camping. 

REC-I-MA- 5. Manage the Jarbidge Forks SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in fishing, rafting, picnicking, 

camping, and viewing wildlife and natural scenery. 

REC-I-MA- 6. Manage the Canyonlands SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in non-motorized recreation 

experiences including hunting, fishing, hiking, equestrian activities, 

and viewing wildlife and natural scenery. 

REC-I-MA- 7. Manage the Jarbidge Foothills SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in non-motorized recreation 

experiences including hunting, mountain biking, hiking, equestrian 

activities, and viewing wildlife and natural scenery. 

REC-I-MA- 8. The Salmon Falls Reservoir SRMA would consist of 

three RMZs with the following management: 

 Manage the Antelope Bay RMZ to provide opportunities to 

engage in hunting, fishing, camping, boating, water sports, and 

motorized and non-motorized trail riding on a series of 

designated routes. 

	 Manage the Cedar Creek RMZ to provide opportunities for 

visitors to engage in fishing, camping, and boating. 

August 2010	 2-148 
 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Recreation 

	 Manage the Lud’s Point RMZ to provide opportunities for visitors 

to engage in hunting, fishing, primitive camping, and viewing 

wildlife and natural scenery. 

See Appendix M for more information on the management and 

settings prescribed for each SRMA and the ERMA. 

REC-I-MA- 9. Give priority for authorization of SRPs for events to 

applicants proposing to make use of less-crowded weekdays and 

focus on visitation on sites and areas resilient to repeated use. 

REC-I-MA- 10. Issue and manage SRPs for a wide variety of uses to 

enhance outdoor recreational opportunities, provide opportunities for 

private enterprise, manage user-group interaction, and limit the 

impacts of such uses upon natural and cultural resources, with 

increased emphasis on realizing positive economic and community 

benefits through SRP management. 

REC-I-MA- 11. Commercial SRPs would not be allowed in the HMA. 

REC-I-MA- 12. Require organized group permits for groups with 50 

or more people. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

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

acres as SRMAs and 1,352,200 

acres as an ERMA. 

Allocations 

REC-II-A- 1. Designate the following SRMAs: 

 Little Pilgrim SRMA (300 acres) 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge SRMA (14,000 acres) 

 Jarbidge Forks SRMA (2,000 acres) 

 Salmon Falls Reservoir SRMA (5,000 acres) 

See Map 52 for locations. 

REC-II-A- 2. Lands within the planning area that are not identified as 

an SRMA would be considered as an ERMA (1,352,200 acres). 

Management Actions 

REC-II-MA- 1. Manage the Little Pilgrim SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in sturgeon fishing and bird 

hunting. 

REC-II-MA- 2. Manage the Bruneau-Jarbidge SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in whitewater boating, hiking, 

fishing, hunting, viewing wildlife and natural scenery, and primitive 

camping. 

REC-II-MA- 3. Manage the Jarbidge Forks SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in fishing, rafting, picnicking, 

camping, and viewing wildlife and natural scenery. 

REC-II-MA- 4. The Salmon Falls Reservoir SRMA would consist of 

three RMZs with the following management: 

2-149 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Recreation 

	 Manage the Antelope Bay RMZ to provide opportunities to 

engage in hunting, fishing, camping, boating, water sports, and 

motorized and non-motorized trail riding on a series of 

designated routes. 

	 Manage the Cedar Creek RMZ to provide opportunities for 

visitors to engage in fishing, camping, and boating. 

	 Manage the Lud’s Point RMZ to provide opportunities for visitors 

to engage in hunting, fishing, primitive camping, and viewing 

wildlife and natural scenery. 

See Appendix M for more information on the management and 

settings prescribed for each SRMA and the ERMA. 

REC-II-MA- 5. Partner with the State, counties, or local communities 

to create off-highway vehicle (OHV) parks at Deadman and Yahoo 

through land tenure adjustment or through a Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act of 1954 (R&PP) lease. OHV parks would be linked by 

a designated route/trail corridor. 

REC-II-MA- 6. Give priority for authorization of SRPs for events to 

applicants proposing to make use of less-crowded weekdays and 

focus on visitation on sites and areas resilient to repeated use. 

REC-II-MA- 7. Issue and manage SRPs for a wide variety of uses to 

enhance outdoor recreational opportunities, provide opportunities for 

private enterprise, manage user-group interaction, and limit the 

impacts of such uses upon natural and cultural resources, with 

increased emphasis on realizing positive economic and community 

benefits through SRP management. 

REC-II-MA- 8. Require organized group permits for groups with 50 or 

more people. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

REC-III-O- 1. Manage 55,800 

acres as SRMAs and 1,317,700 

acres as an ERMA. 

Allocations 

REC-III-A- 1. Designate the following SRMAs:
 

 Deadman/Yahoo SRMA (34,000 acres) 

 Balanced Rock SRMA (500 acres) 

 Little Pilgrim SRMA (300 acres)
 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge SRMA (14,000 acres) 

 Jarbidge Forks SRMA (2,000 acres)
 

 Salmon Falls Reservoir SRMA (5,000 acres) 

See Map 53 for locations. 

REC-III-A- 2. Lands within the planning area that are not identified as
 
 

an SRMA would be considered as an ERMA (1,317,700 acres). 

Management Actions 

REC-III-MA- 1. The Deadman/Yahoo SRMA would consist of three 

RMZs with the following management: 

August 2010	 2-150 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Recreation 

	 Manage the Deadman and Yahoo RMZs to provide opportunities 

for visitors to engage in off-road ATV and motorcycle riding. 

	 Manage the Rosevear Gulch RMZ to provide opportunities for 

visitors to engage in motorized trail riding opportunities on a 

series of designated routes. 

REC-III-MA- 2. Manage the Balanced Rock SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in hiking, viewing wildlife and 

natural scenery, and non-motorized boating. 

REC-III-MA- 3. Manage the Little Pilgrim SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in sturgeon fishing and bird 

hunting. 

REC-III-MA- 4. Manage the Bruneau-Jarbidge SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in whitewater boating, hiking, 

fishing, hunting, viewing wildlife and natural scenery, and primitive 

camping. 

REC-III-MA- 5. Manage the Jarbidge Forks SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in fishing, rafting, picnicking, 

camping, and viewing wildlife and natural scenery. 

REC-III-MA- 6. The Salmon Falls Reservoir SRMA would consist of 

three RMZs with the following management: 

 Manage the Antelope Bay RMZ to provide opportunities to 

engage in hunting, fishing, camping, boating, water sports, and 

motorized and non-motorized trail riding on a series of 

designated routes. 

	 Manage the Cedar Creek RMZ to provide opportunities for 

visitors to engage in fishing, camping, and boating. 

	 Manage the Lud’s Point RMZ to provide opportunities for visitors 

to engage in hunting, fishing, primitive camping, and viewing 

wildlife and natural scenery. 

See Appendix M for more information on the management and 

settings prescribed for each SRMA and the ERMA. 

REC-III-MA- 7. Give priority for authorization of SRPs for events to 

applicants proposing uses occurring outside fire season (October 

through May), that do not duplicate existing events, utilize facilities 

off public lands for overnight accommodation of guests, and focus on 

visitation on sites and areas resilient to repeated use. 

REC-III-MA- 8. Place increased emphasis in SRPs on mitigating the 

impacts of recreation uses in order to support conservation of natural 

and cultural resource values. 

REC-III-MA- 9. Commercial SRPs would not be allowed in the HMA. 

REC-III-MA- 10. Require organized group permits for groups with 30 

or more people. 

2-151 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Recreation 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

REC-IV-O- 1. Manage 204,000 

acres as SRMAs and 1,169,570 

acres as an ERMA. 

Allocations 

REC-IV-A- 1. Designate the following SRMAs: 

 Deadman/Yahoo SRMA (34,000 acres) 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge SRMA (14,000 acres) 

 Jarbidge Forks SRMA (2,000 acres) 

 Canyonlands SRMA (149,000 acres) 

 Salmon Falls Reservoir SRMA (5,000 acres) 

See Map 54 for locations. 

REC-IV-A- 2. Lands within the planning area that are not identified 

as an SRMA would be considered as an ERMA (1,169,570 acres). 

Management Actions 

REC-IV-MA- 1. The Deadman/Yahoo SRMA would consist of three 

RMZs with the following management: 

 Manage the Deadman and Yahoo RMZs to provide opportunities 

for visitors to engage in off-road ATV and motorcycle riding. 

	 Manage the Rosevear Gulch RMZ to provide opportunities for 

visitors to engage in motorized trail riding opportunities on a 

series of designated routes. 

REC-IV-MA- 2. Manage the Bruneau-Jarbidge SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in whitewater boating, hiking, 

fishing, hunting, viewing wildlife and natural scenery, and primitive 

camping. 

REC-IV-MA- 3. Manage the Jarbidge Forks SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in fishing, rafting, picnicking, 

camping, and viewing wildlife and natural scenery. 

REC-IV-MA- 4. Manage the Canyonlands SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in non-motorized recreation 

experiences including hunting, fishing, hiking, equestrian activities, 

and viewing wildlife and natural scenery. 

REC-IV-MA- 5. The Salmon Falls Reservoir SRMA would consist of 

three RMZs with the following management: 

 Manage the Antelope Bay RMZ to provide opportunities to 

engage in hunting, fishing, camping, boating, water sports, and 

motorized and non-motorized trail riding on a series of 

designated routes. 

	 Manage the Cedar Creek RMZ to provide opportunities for 

visitors to engage in fishing, camping, and boating. 

	 Manage the Lud’s Point RMZ to provide opportunities for visitors 

to engage in hunting, fishing, primitive camping, and viewing 

wildlife and natural scenery. 

See Appendix M for more information on the management and 

settings prescribed for each SRMA and the ERMA. 

August 2010	 2-152 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Recreation 

REC-IV-MA- 6. Give priority for authorization of SRPs for events to 

applicants proposing to make use of less-crowded weekdays, utilize 

facilities off public lands for overnight accommodation of guests, and 

focus on visitation on sites and areas resilient to repeated use. 

REC-IV-MA- 7. Place increased emphasis in SRPs on mitigating the 

impacts of recreation uses in order to support conservation of natural 

and cultural resource values. 

REC-IV-MA- 8. Commercial SRPs would not be allowed in the HMA. 

REC-IV-MA- 9. Require organized group permits for groups with 30 

or more people. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

REC-V-O- 1. Manage 19,000 

acres as SRMAs and 1,354,500 

acres as an ERMA. 

Allocations 

REC-V-A- 1. Designate the following SRMAs: 

 Yahoo SRMA (3,000 acres) 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge SRMA (14,000 acres) 

 Jarbidge Forks SRMA (2,000 acres) 

See Map 55 for locations. 

REC-V-A- 2. Lands within the planning area that are not identified as 

an SRMA would be considered as an ERMA (1,354,500 acres). 

Management Actions 

REC-V-MA- 1. Manage the Yahoo SRMA to provide opportunities for 

visitors to engage in off-road ATV and motorcycle riding. 

REC-V-MA- 2. Manage the Bruneau-Jarbidge SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in whitewater boating, hiking, 

fishing, hunting, viewing wildlife and natural scenery, and primitive 

camping. 

REC-V-MA- 3. Manage the Jarbidge Forks SRMA to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in fishing, rafting, picnicking, 

camping, and viewing wildlife and natural scenery. 

See Appendix M for more information on the management and 

settings prescribed for each SRMA and the ERMA. 

REC-V-MA- 4. Give priority for authorization of SRPs for events to 

applicants proposing to make use of less-crowded weekdays, utilize 

facilities off public lands for overnight accommodation of guests, and 

focus on visitation on sites and areas resilient to repeated use. 

REC-V-MA- 5. Place increased emphasis in SRPs on mitigating the 

impacts of recreation uses in order to support conservation of natural 

and cultural resource values. 

REC-V-MA- 6. Commercial SRPs would not be allowed in the HMA. 

2-153 August 2010 
 
 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Transportation and Travel 

REC-V-MA- 7. Require organized group permits for groups with 20 

or more people. 

2.4.3. Transportation and Travel 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

No objective stated. 

Allocations 

TR-NA-A- 1. 1,062,000 acres would be open to cross-country 

motorized vehicle use in MUAs 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16 

(Map 4). 

TR-NA-A- 2. 25,000 acres would be closed to motorized vehicle use 

in MUAs 10 and 14 (Map 4) including: 

 Rim-to-rim in the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons within Bruneau 

River-Sheep Creek and Jarbidge River WSAs, and 

 Salmon Falls Creek ACEC. 

Cultural sites identified as special MUAs in the RMP would be closed 

to motorized vehicle use. 

TR-NA-A- 3. 70,000 acres in the Bruneau-Sheep Creek and 

Jarbidge WSAs are limited to inventoried ways as depicted on Map 

56. These acres were identified as open in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP; 

however, they are managed under the Interim Management Policy 

for Lands Under Wilderness Review which states, “Mechanical 

transport, including all motorized devices as well as trail and 

mountain bikes may only be allowed on existing ways...that were 

designated prior to the passage of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).” 

TR-NA-A- 4. 216,000 acres would be limited to designated routes, 

including: 

 Sand Point ACEC and surrounding paleontological deposits; 

 Oregon NHT;
 

 Bighorn sheep habitat and Dry Lake Beds/Bruneau River and 

Post Office cultural areas in MUA 11; 

 Devil Creek, Juniper Ranch, and Clover Creek cultural areas in 

MUA 12; 

 Devil Creek Complex in MUA 13; and 

 Devil Creek and bighorn sheep habitat in MUAs 15 and 16. 

See Map 4 for MUA boundaries. 

See Map 57 for locations of transportation and travel allocations. 

TR-NA-A- 5. Crucial mule deer and pronghorn winter range within 

MUAs 15 and 16 would be limited seasonally for snow vehicles if 

IDFG determines harassment is occurring (Map 4). 

Management Actions 

TR-NA-MA- 1. Avoid constructing any roads within or closely 

adjacent to crucial wildlife habitat. 

August 2010 2-154 
 

 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Transportation and Travel 

TR-NA-MA- 2. Roads would avoid riparian zones to the extent 

practicable. 

TR-NA-MA- 3. Roads would not be built within 1 mile of bighorn 

sheep habitat. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

TR-CA-G- 1. Manage and provide for motorized, non-motorized, and non-mechanized access that would 

balance resource protection and use. 

Objective 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Allocations 

See allocations for specific alternatives. 

Management Actions 

TR-CA-MA- 1. Area designations apply to all off-highway vehicles 

(OHVs), which include any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed 

for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, 

excluding:
 

 Any nonamphibious registered motorboat; 

 Any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while 

being used for emergency purposes; 

 Any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized 

officer or otherwise officially approved; 

 Vehicles in official use; and 

 Any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of 

national defense emergencies (43 CFR 8340.0-5(a)). 

Area and route designations also do not apply to vehicles being used 

by members of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes or the ShoshoneBannock Tribes to access traditional use areas of importance to the 

tribes or to vehicles being used by members of the ShoshoneBannock Tribes to exercise their tribally reserved treaty rights. 

TR-CA-MA- 2. Whenever an authorized officer determines that 

motorized, non-motorized, or non-mechanized use would cause or is 

causing considerable adverse effects on resources, the area or trail 

would be restricted or closed to the type of use causing the adverse 

effects. Such limitations or closures are not OHV area designations. 

TR-CA-MA- 3. Minimize construction and maintenance of roads 

within or adjacent to special status wildlife and fish habitat and big 

game winter range during important seasonal periods (Appendix H). 

TR-CA-MA- 4. Continue to recognize valid agreements and 

Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with local highway districts for 

road maintenance. 

TR-CA-MA- 5. Complete a Comprehensive Transportation and 

Travel Management Plan (CTTMP) within 5 years of the signing of 

the ROD. The CTTMP would be developed through a public process 

to determine the transportation and travel system for the planning 

area. The CTTMP would determine the routes and trails to be 

designated, modified, closed, or rehabilitated as well as the 

maintenance level, modes of travel, and seasonal and access 

2-155 August 2010 

 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Transportation and Travel 

restrictions for designated routes. During the CTTMP process, 

additional data needs and a strategy to collect information will be 

identified. The NEPA analysis that accompanies the CTTMP would 

include, at a minimum, cumulative effects assessments of road
 

density and fragmentation of sage-grouse habitat. Decisions made in 

the CTTMP will be limited to management of BLM roads.
 

TR-CA-MA- 6. Route designation would, at minimum, follow criteria 

outlined Federal regulations, such as 43 CFR 8342.1, which 

includes: 

 Locating routes to minimize damage to soil, watershed, 

vegetation, air, or other resources of the public lands, and to 

prevent impairment of wilderness suitability; 

	 Locating routes to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant 

disruption of wildlife habitats; special attention would be given to 

protect Endangered or Threatened species or their habitats; 

	 Locating routes to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle 

use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same 

or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the compatibility of 

such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into 

account noise and other factors; 

	 Not locating routes in officially designated wilderness areas or 

primitive areas; locating routes in natural areas only if the 

authorized officer determines that off-road vehicle use in such 

locations would not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, 

scenic, or other values for which such areas are established. 

The authorized officer may add additional criteria in the CTTMP 

process, consistent with objectives in the RMP. 

TR-CA-MA- 7. Route designation would also adhere to the following 

guidelines: 

 Designated routes would comply with the guidelines contained in 

the ARMS (Appendix D). 

	 Conflict with cultural and paleontological resources would be 

minimized when designating routes. 

	 Designated routes may follow or cross the Oregon NHT and 

National Register of Historic Places-eligible and -listed segments 

of the Kelton Freight Road and Toana Freight Road in areas 

where previous disturbance has occurred and after consultation 

with SHPO. 

	 Where motorized vehicle use is allowed within the Oregon NHT 

protective corridor, travel would not degrade the trail. 

	 Designated routes within suitable and eligible WSR segments 

must maintain/enhance their ORVs, free-flowing character, water 

quality, and tentative classification until Congress acts. 

 Loop routes are preferred to dead end routes.
 

 Parking areas and turnouts would be considered under the same 

criteria used for routes. 

The authorized officer may add additional guidelines in the CTTMP 

process, consistent with objectives in the RMP. 

TR-CA-MA- 8. The considerations used to determine whether a 

specific route would be designated, modified, or closed as well as 

the maintenance level, mode of travel, and seasonal and access 

restrictions for designated routes include, but are not limited to: 

August 2010	 2-156 
 

	 

	 


 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Transportation and Travel 

	 Does the route affect access to areas of cultural or religious 

concern for Native Americans? 

 Is the route compatible with objectives outlined in the RMP? 

 What is the route used for? When is it used and by whom? 

 Is the route adequate to provide access for all of its intended 

purposes? 

	 Does the route provide access to existing rights, private land, or 

other agency lands (e.g., State, Forest Service, other BLM 

FOs)? 

 Is the route necessary for emergency services?
 

 Does the route contribute to fire suppression capabilities? 

 Does the route pose a threat to public safety? 

 Do multiple or parallel routes access the same area? Are they 

used by different methods of transportation? 

 Is the route re-vegetating and no longer receiving motorized 

use? 

 Is the route necessary for authorized commercial activities, 

including livestock grazing, energy development, and recreation? 

	 Is the route impacting or does it present a threat to resource 

values (see questions below)? If so, does its purpose justify 

impacts or potential threats to resources? 

- Could the route affect areas of cultural or religious concern 

for Native Americans? 

- Could the route adversely affect sites that may be eligible for 

the National Register of Historic Places? 

- Does the route affect known paleontological sites? 

- Could the route adversely affect Threatened or Endangered 

species or their habitat? 

- Does the route affect other special status species or their 

habitat? 

- Does the route have a high potential to encourage 

harassment or disruption to wildlife? 

- Is the route causing soil erosion? 

- Does the route traverse soils that are easily eroded or highly 

susceptible to damage? 

- Does the route go through a known infestation of noxious 

weeds? 

- Does the route have a high potential to encourage 

harassment or disruption to wild horses? 

- Is the route compatible with the VRM Class for the area? 

The authorized officer may adjust these considerations in the 

CTTMP process, consistent with objectives in the RMP. 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

2-157 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Transportation and Travel 

Objective 

TR-I-O- 1. Provide a 

transportation and travel system 

that facilitates multiple use, with 

an emphasis on recreational 

use, livestock grazing, and 

minimizing impacts to big game 

habitats. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Allocations 

TR-I-A- 1. Designated areas in the Deadman/Yahoo SRMA would be 

open to cross-country motorized vehicle use (3,600 acres). 

TR-I-A- 2. Salmon Falls Creek ACEC north and south of Lily Grade 

crossing, non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness 

characteristics, and the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons rim-to-rim 

within the WSAs would be closed to motorized vehicle use (57,000 

acres). 

TR-I-A- 3. Travel would be limited to designated ways in the portions 

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

designated in the CTTMP must be identified as inventoried ways on 

Map 56. Until the CTTMP is completed, travel is limited to 

inventoried ways as depicted on Map 56. 

TR-I-A- 4. Travel would be limited to designated routes in the 

remainder of the planning area (1,241,000 acres). Specific route 

designations would be made in an implementation-level travel and 

transportation management planning process following the 

completion of the RMP. Until route designation occurs, areas limited 

to designated routes would be managed as limited to existing routes 

as depicted on Map 56. Map 56 reflects the best GIS data available 

at the time of this publication; these data were compiled from routes 

identified on United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic 

maps and aerial photos (2004 National Agricultural Imagery Program 

[NAIP] imagery), supplemented with field data collected on the 

ground and reviewed by BLM staff. A more thorough review of the 

data will be performed as part of the CTTMP, which may include 

additional on-the-ground data collection and verification. 

See Map 58 for locations of transportation and travel allocations. 

TR-I-A- 5. Seasonal restrictions on travel within the HMA would be in 

place during foaling (March through July); motorized travel would not 

be allowed on primitive roads during this time. 

Management Actions 

TR-I-MA- 1. Motorized vehicle restrictions would apply to lessees, 

BLM permit holders, and ROW holders, but site-specific exceptions 

to motorized vehicle restrictions could be authorized in the lease, 

permits, or ROW. 

TR-I-MA- 2. Other activities in areas limited or closed to motorized 

travel may be allowed on a case-by-case basis, but would require 

prior written permission of an authorized officer. These activities may 

include but not be limited to: 

 Motorized cross-country travel for non-BLM government entities 

on official administrative business (e.g., noxious weed control, 

surveying, and animal damage control efforts). 

 Motorized cross-country travel by entities requiring access to 

private lands, resources, or legal improvements within or 

adjacent to closed or limited areas. 

TR-I-MA- 3. Access and use restrictions may be imposed to reduce 

risk of wildland fire during fire restrictions, as determined by an 

August 2010 2-158 
 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses
 

Transportation and Travel
 

authorized officer; restrictions may include, but not be limited to, 

closing primitive roads, trails, and areas open to cross-country 

motorized vehicle use. Travel related to administrative uses and 

emergency services may continue during fire restrictions. 

TR-I-MA- 4. Game retrieval using motorized vehicles would be 

allowed within 300 feet of a designated route, but would not be 

allowed within areas closed to motorized vehicle use or WSAs. 

TR-I-MA- 5. Motorized cross-country travel to a camp site would be 

allowed within 25 feet of designated routes, but would not be allowed 

within areas closed to motorized vehicle use, riparian areas, or 

WSAs. Motorized cross-country travel to a camp site may be closed 

or limited seasonally or as impacts or environmental conditions 

warrant. 

TR-I-MA- 6. Identify locations for and install gates and cattleguards 

along designated routes to minimize conflicts between motorized 

recreation activities and livestock grazing operations. 

TR-I-MA- 7. Travel Management Areas (TMAs) contain lands with 

relatively homogeneous travel and transportation management 

characteristics and similar resource concerns or issues, as well as 

an overall focus for travel and transportation management. The 

priority resource or use emphasis for each TMA depends on the 

focus of the TMA and other objectives outlined in the RMP. The 

TMAs and their travel and transportation planning focus would be as 

follows: 

 Snake River TMA (316,000 acres): Focus on balancing the 

needs for public access with resource objectives. 

 Deadman/Yahoo TMA (41,000 acres): Focus on facilitating 

motorized recreation activities, including open play areas and a 

designated trail system. 

 Devil Creek TMA (667,000 acres): Focus on balancing livestock 

grazing management needs with habitat restoration activities. 

 Canyonlands TMA (213,000 acres): Focus on increasing core 

habitat size for mule deer and providing opportunities for nonmotorized recreation experiences. 

 Jarbidge Foothills TMA (137,000 acres): Focus on increasing 

core habitat size for mule deer and providing opportunities for 

non-motorized recreation experiences. 

See Map 63 for locations of TMAs. 

TR-I-MA- 8. The authorized officer has the authority to adjust TMA 

boundaries and their focus, consistent with objectives in the RMP, if 

necessary to facilitate CTTMP process. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

2-159 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Transportation and Travel 

Objective 

TR-II-O- 1. Provide a 

transportation and travel system 

to facilitate multiple use, with an 

emphasis on commercial use 

and minimizing impacts on 

native vegetation. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Allocations 

TR-II-A- 1. No areas would be open to cross-country motorized 

vehicle use. 

TR-II-A- 2. The Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons rim-to-rim within the 

WSAs would be closed to motorized vehicle use (21,000 acres). 

TR-II-A- 3. Travel would be limited to designated ways in the 

portions of WSAs not closed to motorized vehicle use (73,000 

acres). Ways designated in the CTTMP must be identified as 

inventoried ways on Map 56. Until the CTTMP is completed, travel is 

limited to inventoried ways as depicted on Map 56. 

TR-II-A- 4. Travel would be limited to designated routes in the 

remainder of the planning area (1,297,000 acres). Specific route 

designations would be made in an implementation-level travel and 

transportation management planning process following the 

completion of the RMP. Until route designation occurs, areas limited 

to designated routes would be managed as limited to existing routes 

as depicted on Map 56. Map 56 reflects the best GIS data available 

at the time of this publication; these data were compiled from routes 

identified on USGS topographic maps and aerial photos (2004 NAIP 

imagery), supplemented with field data collected on the ground and 

reviewed by BLM staff. A more thorough review of the data will be 

performed as part of the CTTMP, which may include additional onthe-ground data collection and verification. 

See Map 59 for locations of transportation and travel allocations. 

Management Actions 

TR-II-MA- 1. Motorized vehicle restrictions would apply to lessees, 

BLM permit holders, and ROW holders, but site-specific exceptions 

to motorized vehicle restrictions could be authorized in the lease, 

permits, or ROW. 

TR-II-MA- 2. Other activities in areas limited or closed to motorized 

travel may be allowed on a case-by-case basis, but would require 

prior written permission of an authorized officer. These activities may 

include but not be limited to: 

 Motorized cross-country travel for non-BLM government entities 

on official administrative business (e.g., noxious weed control, 

surveying, and animal damage control efforts). 

 Motorized cross-country travel by entities requiring access to 

private lands, resources, or legal improvements within or 

adjacent to closed or limited areas. 

TR-II-MA- 3. Game retrieval using motorized vehicles would be 

allowed off designated routes, but would not be allowed within areas 

closed to motorized vehicle use or WSAs. 

TR-II-MA- 4. Motorized cross-country travel to a camp site would be 

allowed within 100 feet of designated routes, but would not be 

allowed within areas closed to motorized vehicle use, riparian areas, 

or WSAs. Motorized cross-country travel to a camp site may be 

closed or limited seasonally or as impacts or environmental 

conditions warrant. 

August 2010 2-160 
 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Transportation and Travel 

TR-II-MA- 5. Identify locations for and install gates and cattleguards 

along designated routes to minimize conflicts between motorized 

recreation activities and livestock grazing operations. 

TR-II-MA- 6. TMAs contain lands with relatively homogeneous travel 

and transportation management characteristics and similar resource 

concerns or issues, as well as an overall focus for travel and 

transportation management. The priority resource or use emphasis 

for each TMA depends on the focus of the TMA and other objectives 

outlined in the RMP. The TMAs and their travel and transportation 

planning focus would be as follows: 

 Bruneau Desert TMA (1,161,000 acres): Focus on facilitating 

commercial uses, while mitigating impacts to resources. 

	 Canyonlands TMA (213,000 acres): Focus on facilitating 

livestock grazing management, while mitigating impacts to 

resources. 

See Map 64 for locations of TMAs. 

TR-II-MA- 7. The authorized officer has the authority to adjust TMA 

boundaries and their focus, consistent with objectives in the RMP, if 

necessary to facilitate CTTMP process. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

TR-III-O- 1. A transportation and 

travel system would provide for 

multiple use, with an emphasis 

on wildland fire prevention and 

suppression activities. 

Allocations 

TR-III-A- 1. Designated areas in the Deadman/Yahoo SRMA would 

be open to cross-country motorized vehicle use (3,570 acres). 

TR-III-A- 2. Salmon Falls Creek ACEC north and south of Lily Grade 

crossing and the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons rim-to-rim within 

the WSAs would be closed to motorized vehicle use (27,000 acres). 

TR-III-A- 3. Travel would be limited to designated ways in the 

portions of WSAs not closed to motorized vehicle use (72,000 

acres). Ways designated in the CTTMP must be identified as 

inventoried ways on Map 56. Until the CTTMP is completed, travel is 

limited to inventoried ways as depicted on Map 56. 

TR-III-A- 4. Travel would be limited to designated routes in the 

remainder of the planning area (1,275,000 acres). Specific route 

designations would be made in an implementation-level travel and 

transportation management planning process following the 

completion of the RMP. Until route designation occurs, areas limited 

to designated routes would be managed as limited to existing routes 

as depicted on Map 56. Map 56 reflects the best GIS data available 

at the time of this publication; these data were compiled from routes 

identified on USGS topographic maps and aerial photos (2004 NAIP 

imagery), supplemented with field data collected on the ground and 

reviewed by BLM staff. A more thorough review of the data will be 

performed as part of the CTTMP, which may include additional onthe-ground data collection and verification. 

See Map 60 for locations of transportation and travel allocations. 

2-161 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resource Uses

Transportation and Travel 

August 2010 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

TR-III-A- 5. Seasonal restrictions on travel within the HMA would be 

in place during foaling (March through July); motorized travel would 

not be allowed on primitive roads during this time. 

Management Actions 

TR-III-MA- 1. Motorized vehicle restrictions would apply to lessees, 

BLM permit holders, and ROW holders, but site-specific exceptions 

to motorized vehicle restrictions could be authorized in the lease, 

permits, or ROW. 

TR-III-MA- 2. Other activities in areas limited or closed to motorized 

travel may be allowed on a case-by-case basis, but would require 

prior written permission of an authorized officer. These activities may 

include but not be limited to: 

 Motorized cross-country travel for non-BLM government entities 

on official administrative business (e.g., noxious weed control, 

surveying, and animal damage control efforts). 

 Motorized cross-country travel by entities requiring access to 

private lands, resources, or legal improvements within or 

adjacent to closed or limited areas. 

TR-III-MA- 3. Close primitive roads, trails, and areas open to crosscountry motorized vehicle use to reduce risk of wildland fire during 

fire restrictions or when conditions dictate as determined by an 

authorized officer. Travel related to BLM administrative uses and 

emergency services may continue during fire restrictions. 

TR-III-MA- 4. Game retrieval using motorized vehicles would not be 

allowed off designated routes. 

TR-III-MA- 5. Motorized cross-country travel to a camp site would be 

allowed within 25 feet of designated routes, but would not be allowed 

within areas closed to motorized vehicle use, riparian areas, or 

WSAs. Motorized cross-country travel to a camp site may be closed 

or limited seasonally or as impacts or environmental conditions 

warrant. 

TR-III-MA- 6. Identify locations for and install gates and cattleguards 

along designated routes to minimize conflicts between motorized 

recreation activities and livestock grazing operations and to facilitate 

fire suppression. 

TR-III-MA- 7. TMAs contain lands with relatively homogeneous travel 

and transportation management characteristics and similar resource 

concerns or issues, as well as an overall focus for travel and 

transportation management. The priority resource or use emphasis 

for each TMA depends on the focus of the TMA and other objectives 

outlined in the RMP. The TMAs and their travel and transportation 

planning focus would be as follows: 

 Snake River TMA (312,000 acres): Focus on improving public 

access and facilitating fire suppression operations and wildland 

fire prevention. 

 Deadman/Yahoo TMA (34,000 acres): Focus on facilitating 

motorized recreation activities, including open play areas and a 

designated trail system. 

2-162 
 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Transportation and Travel 

	 Devil Creek TMA (485,000 acres): Focus on improving access 

and facilitating fire suppression operations and wildland fire 

prevention. 

	 West Side TMA (405,000 acres): Focus on improving access 

and facilitating fire suppression operations and wildland fire 

prevention. 

	 Jarbidge Foothills TMA (137,000 acres): Focus on improving 

access and facilitating fire suppression operations and wildland 

fire prevention. 

See Map 65 for locations of TMAs. 

TR-III-MA- 8. The authorized officer has the authority to adjust TMA 

boundaries and their focus, consistent with objectives in the RMP, if 

necessary to facilitate CTTMP process. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

TR-IV-O- 1. Provide a 

transportation and travel system 

to facilitate multiple use and 

resource protection with an 

emphasis on meeting native 

vegetation and special status 

species goals. 

Allocations 

TR-IV-A- 1. Designated areas in the Deadman/Yahoo SRMA would 

be open to cross-country motorized vehicle use (3,570 acres). 

TR-IV-A- 2. Non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness 

characteristics and the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons rim-to-rim 

within the WSAs would be closed to motorized vehicle use (74,000 

acres). 

TR-IV-A- 3. Travel would be limited to designated ways in the 

portions of WSAs not closed to motorized vehicle use (73,000 

acres). Ways designated in the CTTMP must be identified as 

inventoried ways on Map 56. Until the CTTMP is completed, travel is 

limited to inventoried ways as depicted on Map 56. 

TR-IV-A- 4. Travel would be limited to designated routes in the 

remainder of the planning area (1,223,000 acres). Specific route 

designations would be made in an implementation-level travel and 

transportation management planning process following the 

completion of the RMP. Until route designation occurs, areas limited 

to designated routes would be managed as limited to existing routes 

as depicted on Map 56. Map 56 reflects the best GIS data available 

at the time of this publication; these data were compiled from routes 

identified on USGS topographic maps and aerial photos (2004 NAIP 

imagery), supplemented with field data collected on the ground and 

reviewed by BLM staff. A more thorough review of the data will be 

performed as part of the CTTMP, which may include additional onthe-ground data collection and verification. 

See Map 61 for locations of transportation and travel allocations. 

Management Actions 

TR-IV-MA- 1. Motorized vehicle restrictions would apply to lessees, 

BLM permit holders, and ROW holders, but site-specific exceptions 

2-163 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Transportation and Travel 

to motorized vehicle restrictions could be authorized in the lease, 

permits, or ROW. 

TR-IV-MA- 2. Other activities in areas limited or closed to motorized 

travel may be allowed on a case-by-case basis, but would require 

prior written permission of an authorized officer. These activities may 

include but not be limited to: 

 Motorized cross-country travel for non-BLM government entities 

on official administrative business (e.g., noxious weed control, 

surveying, and animal damage control efforts). 

	 Motorized cross-country travel by entities requiring access to 

private lands, resources, or legal improvements within or 

adjacent to closed or limited areas. 

TR-IV-MA- 3. Access and use restrictions may be imposed to reduce 

risk of wildland fire during fire restrictions, as determined by an 

authorized officer; restrictions may include, but not be limited to, 

closing primitive roads, trails, and areas open to cross-country 

motorized vehicle use. Travel related to administrative uses and 

emergency services may continue during fire restrictions. 

TR-IV-MA- 4. Game retrieval using motorized vehicles would not be 

allowed off designated routes. 

TR-IV-MA- 5. Motorized cross-country travel to a camp site would be 

allowed within 25 feet of designated routes, but would not be allowed 

within areas closed to motorized vehicle use, riparian areas, or 

WSAs. Motorized cross-country travel to a camp site may be closed 

or limited seasonally or as impacts or environmental conditions 

warrant. 

TR-IV-MA- 6. Identify locations for and install gates and cattleguards 

along designated routes to minimize conflicts between motorized 

recreation activities and livestock grazing operations. 

TR-IV-MA- 7. TMAs contain lands with relatively homogeneous 

travel and transportation management characteristics and similar 

resource concerns or issues, as well as an overall focus for travel 

and transportation management. The priority resource or use 

emphasis for each TMA depends on the focus of the TMA and other 

objectives outlined in the RMP. The TMAs and their travel and 

transportation planning focus would be as follows: 

 Snake River TMA (323,000 acres): Focus on accommodating 

restoration while providing for public access. 

	 Deadman/Yahoo TMA (34,000 acres): Focus on facilitating 

motorized recreation activities, including open play areas and a 

designated trail system. 

	 Devil Creek TMA (666,000 acres): Focus on increasing core 

habitat size for sage-grouse and big game and accommodating 

habitat restoration activities, while providing for public access. 

	 Canyonlands TMA (213,000 acres): Focus on increasing core 

habitat size for sage-grouse and big game and providing 

opportunities for non-motorized recreation experiences. 

	 Jarbidge Foothills TMA (137,000 acres): Focus on increasing 

core habitat size for sage-grouse and big game and 

August 2010	 2-164 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Transportation and Travel 

accommodating habitat restoration activities, while providing for 

public access. 

See Map 63 for locations of TMAs. 

TR-IV-MA- 8. The authorized officer has the authority to adjust TMA 

boundaries and their focus, consistent with objectives in the RMP, if 

necessary to facilitate CTTMP process. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

TR-V-O- 1. Provide a 

transportation and travel system 

to facilitate multiple use and 

resource protection with an 

emphasis on meeting native 

vegetation and special status 

species goals. 

Allocations 

TR-V-A- 1. Designated areas in the Yahoo SRMA would be open to 

cross-country motorized vehicle use (700 acres). 

TR-V-A- 2. WSAs, including inventoried ways shown on Map 56, and 

non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics would 

be closed to motorized vehicle use (147,000 acres). 

TR-V-A- 3. Travel would be limited to designated routes in the 

remainder of the planning (1,226,000 acres). Specific route 

designations would be made in an implementation-level travel and 

transportation management planning process following the 

completion of the RMP. Until route designation occurs, areas limited 

to designated routes would be managed as limited to existing routes 

as depicted on Map 56. Map 56 reflects the best GIS data available 

at the time of this publication; these data were compiled from routes 

identified on USGS topographic maps and aerial photos (2004 NAIP 

imagery), supplemented with field data collected on the ground and 

reviewed by BLM staff. A more thorough review of the data will be 

performed as part of the CTTMP, which may include additional onthe-ground data collection and verification. 

See Map 62 for locations of transportation and travel allocations. 

Management Actions 

TR-V-MA- 1. Motorized vehicle restrictions apply to lessees, BLM 

permit holders, and ROW holders, with no exceptions. 

TR-V-MA- 2. Other activities in areas limited or closed to motorized 

travel may be allowed on a case-by-case basis, but would require 

prior written permission of an authorized officer. These activities may 

include but not be limited to: 

 Motorized cross-country travel for non-BLM government entities 

on official administrative business (e.g., noxious weed control, 

surveying, and animal damage control efforts). 

 Motorized cross-country travel by entities requiring access to 

private lands, resources, or legal improvements within or 

adjacent to closed or limited areas. 

2-165 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Land Use Authorizations 

TR-V-MA- 3. Access and use restrictions may be imposed to reduce 

risk of wildland fire during fire restrictions, as determined by an 

authorized officer; restrictions may include, but not be limited to, 

closing primitive roads, trails, and areas open to cross-country 

motorized vehicle use. Travel related to administrative uses and 

emergency services may continue during fire restrictions. 

TR-V-MA- 4. Game retrieval using motorized vehicles would not be 

allowed off designated routes. 

TR-V-MA- 5. Motorized cross-country travel to a camp site would be 

allowed within 25 feet of designated routes, but would not be allowed 

within areas closed to motorized vehicle use, riparian areas, or 

WSAs. Motorized cross-country travel to a camp site may be closed 

or limited seasonally or as impacts or environmental conditions 

warrant. 

TR-V-MA- 6. Identify locations for and install gates and cattleguards 

along designated routes to minimize conflicts between motorized 

recreation activities and livestock grazing operations. 

TR-V-MA- 7. TMAs contain lands with relatively homogeneous travel 

and transportation management characteristics and similar resource 

concerns or issues, as well as an overall focus for travel and 

transportation management. The priority resource or use emphasis 

for each TMA depends on the focus of the TMA and other objectives 

outlined in the RMP. The TMAs and their travel and transportation 

planning focus would be as follows: 

 Snake River TMA (343,000 acres): Focus on accommodating 

habitat restoration activities. 

	 Yahoo TMA (3,000 acres): Focus on facilitating motorized 

recreation activities, including open play areas and a designated 

trail system. 

	 Devil Creek TMA (485,000 acres): Focus on increasing core 

habitat size for sage-grouse and other special status species and 

accommodating habitat restoration activities. 

	 West Side TMA (405,000 acres): Focus on increasing core 

habitat size for sage-grouse and other special status species and 

accommodating habitat restoration activities. 

	 Jarbidge Foothills TMA (137,000 acres): Focus on increasing 

core habitat size for sage-grouse and other special status 

species and accommodating habitat restoration activities. 

See Map 66 for locations of TMAs. 

TR-V-MA- 8. The authorized officer has the authority to adjust TMA 

boundaries and their focus, consistent with objectives in the RMP, if 

necessary to facilitate CTTMP process. 

2.4.4. Land Use Authorizations 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

August 2010	 2-166 
 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Land Use Authorizations 

Objective 

No objective stated. 

Allocations 

LA-NA-A- 1. The following areas would be utility 

avoidance/restricted areas (110,000 acres): 

 Paleontological sites at Glenns Ferry and Pasadena Valley 

(surface, underground); 

 Sand Point ACEC (surface, underground); 

 Dove Springs; 

 96 paleontological sites; 

 All rutted segments of Oregon Trail (overhead, surface, 

underground); 

 Recommended suitable wilderness area; 

 Bruneau/Jarbidge River ACEC (overhead, surface, 

underground); 

 121 miles of WSR area; 

 Portions of 24,080 acres of the Dry Lakes/Bruneau River 

Complex and Post Office Cultural areas (surface, underground); 

	 Portions of 4,480 acres of three cultural resource complexes at 

Juniper Ranch, Clover Creek, and Devil Creek (surface, 

underground); 

 Salmon Falls Creek Canyon (overhead, surface, underground). 

Utility corridors would avoid riparian areas to the extent possible. 

See Map 68 for locations of utility avoidance/restricted areas. 

Management Actions 

LA-NA-MA- 1. Generally, public lands may be considered for the 

installation of public utilities, except where expressly closed by law or 

regulation. ROWs would be considered except where specifically 

identified in the RMP for avoidance. 

LA-NA-MA- 2. Restrict future communication site needs to existing 

sites as much as possible. 

LA-NA-MA- 3. Consider new communication sites if there is a 

demonstrated need and the resource conflicts are low or can be 

mitigated. 

LA-NA-MA- 4. Restrict wind energy development from wildlife 

habitat where adverse effects could not be mitigated. 

LA-NA-MA- 5. Consider alternative methods such as ROWs and 

cooperative agreements for meeting the withdrawal/classification 

objectives. 

LA-NA-MA- 6. Withdrawal/classification modifications and 

extensions must provide for maximum possible multiple uses, with 

particular emphasis upon mineral exploration and development. 

When withdrawals are revoked, the lands continue to be in the 

retention category. 

LA-NA-MA- 7. New withdrawals proposed will be handled on a caseby-case basis in accordance with Section 204 of FLPMA, with full 

public participation. 

2-167 August 2010 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Land Use Authorizations 

LA-NA-MA- 8. Land use permits for irrigated agricultural use of 

public land would be used sparingly and be restricted to resolve 

situations where other alternatives prove to be impractical, such as: 

 Small areas of public land isolated between a farmed field and a 

canal, ditch or road; and 

	 Renewal for an circular pivot already authorized by a land use 

permit until the land is removed from agricultural production and 

rehabilitated or until the land is transferred from public 

ownership. 

	 In cases where a pivot must cross public land, the lands are to 

remain unfarmed and a land use permit would be issued only for 

the crossing pivot. 

LA-NA-MA- 9. Treat soil erosion that occurs on public lands as a 

result of excess irrigation flows from private agricultural lands a 

trespass in order to stop the erosion and to rehabilitate the damage 

to public land. 

LA-NA-MA- 10. Prevent agricultural trespass, including irrigation 

lines in the Sand Point ACEC. 

LA-NA-MA- 11. Consider airport leases only when a definite need 

has been shown, supported by a specific development and 

management plan, and a showing of financial capability to carry out 

the project. 

Management Common to the No Action and All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

See goals in Management Specific to the No Action Alternative and Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Allocations 

LA-C-A- 1. BLM would review all withdrawals on and classifications 

of public lands to eliminate all unnecessary withdrawals and 

classifications. Reviews would consider: 

 For what purpose were the lands withdrawn? 

 Is that purpose still being served? 

 Are the lands suitable for return to the public domain? 

Management Actions 

LA-C-MA- 1. Implement the Programmatic Policies and Best 

Management Practices in the Wind Energy Development Program 

(Appendix N). 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

LA-CA-G- 1. Public needs for land use authorizations would be met with consideration for other resource 

values 

. 

August 2010	 2-168 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Land Use Authorizations 

Objective 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Allocations 

LA-CA-A- 1. Applications for solar energy developments would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis; as of 2009, the planning area 

lacks potential for commercial solar energy development due to 

current technology. 

LA-CA-A- 2. Retain existing withdrawals, with the option of a Section 

24 restoration for power site classifications and power site reserves if 

needed, as provided for in the Federal Power Act of 1920. 

Management Actions 

LA-CA-MA- 1. Place new ROWs for pipelines and overhead lines
 

within ROW corridors where practical; other locations would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis in areas not identified for ROW 

avoidance or exclusion, consistent with allocations listed above.
 

LA-CA-MA- 2. New ROWs would be located in disturbance corridors 

where practical. 

LA-CA-MA- 3. New ROWs would follow the guidance in the ARMS 

(Appendix D).
 

LA-CA-MA- 4. New ROWs would meet VRM class objectives. 

LA-CA-MA- 5. Co-locate new communication sites with existing sites 

where practical; communication sites present in 2009 are located at: 

 Yahoo Creek,
 

 Lower Salmon Falls, 

 Signal Butte, 

 American Towers, 

 Frog Hollow, 

 Castleford Butte, and 

 Black Butte. 

See Map 67. Other locations would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance areas and 

outside ROW exclusion areas.
 

LA-CA-MA- 6. BLM management activities and authorized uses on
 

lands with existing withdrawals would be consistent with the 

purposes of the withdrawal. Proposed BLM management activities 

and authorized uses that are not consistent with the purposes of the 

withdrawal would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine 

whether the proposal can be modified or whether the withdrawal is 

still necessary. 

LA-CA-MA- 7. Land use permits for pivot crossings may be allowed, 

in accordance with policy and regulations. In cases where a pivot
 

crosses public land, the lands are to remain unfarmed and 

unirrigated. 

LA-CA-MA- 8. Consider airport leases on a case-by-case basis. 

2-169 August 2010 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Land Use Authorizations 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

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. 

Allocations 

LA-I-A- 1. The following areas would be avoidance areas for ROWs 

(896,000 acres); ROWs would be allowed in these areas only if the 

avoidance stipulations are met and if the area is not identified for 

ROW exclusion: 

 Areas within USAF MOAs (852,000 acres): structures must be 

lower than 100 feet above ground level 

	 Oregon NHT protective corridor (11,000 acres): new surface or 

overhead ROWs would follow existing ROW or disturbance 

corridors; underground ROWs would be allowed with mitigation 

for disturbance within the protective corridor 

	 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSR corridors (32,000 acres): 

ROWs must maintain/enhance the river segment's ORVs, freeflowing character, water quality, and tentative classification 

	 Non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics 

(35,000 acres): ROWs must not impact naturalness, 

opportunities for solitude, or opportunities for primitive and/or 

unconfined recreation in these areas 

	 Bruneau-Jarbidge and Salmon Falls Creek ACECs (88,000 

acres): new ROWs would be restricted to ROW corridors and 

locations of existing ROWs 

Several ROW avoidance areas overlap; where this occurs, all 

avoidance stipulations must be met. In addition, some ROW 

avoidance areas overlap with ROW exclusion areas; where this 

occurs, the more restrictive exclusion management applies. See Map 

69 for locations of ROW avoidance areas. 

LA-I-A- 2. The following areas would be exclusion areas for ROWs 

(95,000 acres); they would not be available for ROWs under any 

conditions: 

 Sand Point ACEC 

 WSAs 

See Map 74 for locations of ROW exclusion areas. 

LA-I-A- 3. Designate the following ROW corridors for utilities (e.g., 

transmission and phone lines, oil/gas pipelines): 

 Pilgrim Gulch 

 Shoestring 

 Saylor Creek 

 Balanced Rock 

 Jarbidge 

See Map 77 for locations of ROW corridors. 

LA-I-A- 4. New communication sites could be considered throughout 

the planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance 

areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. 

LA-I-A- 5. 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. Map 79 

August 2010	 2-170 
	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Land Use Authorizations 

displays areas meeting these criteria in 2009; the map can be 

updated as vegetation conditions change on the ground. 

LA-I-A- 6. ROWs for roads could be considered throughout the 

planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance, 

outside ROW exclusion areas, and consistent with the 

Transportation and Travel section. 

Management Actions 

LA-I-MA- 1. ROW construction and maintenance activities should 

avoid disturbing special status species and mule deer during 

important seasonal periods, unless the disturbance can be mitigated 

(Appendix H). 

LA-I-MA- 2. Locate new transmission and phone lines, 

communications towers, meteorological towers, and wind turbines 1 

to 3 miles away from active sage-grouse leks if it can be documented 

the structure would not conflict with the lek. If this cannot be 

documented, structures must be at least 3 miles away from active 

sage-grouse leks. 

LA-I-MA- 3. Do not locate new communication sites in special status 

species habitat if the project would negatively affect special status 

species or their habitat, unless those impacts can be mitigated. 

LA-I-MA- 4. 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. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

LA-II-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. 

Allocations 

LA-II-A- 1. The following areas would be avoidance areas for ROWs 

(878,000 acres); ROWs would be allowed in these areas only if the 

avoidance stipulations are met and if the area is not identified for 

ROW exclusion: 

 Areas within USAF MOAs (852,000 acres): structures must be 

lower than 100 feet above ground level 

	 Oregon NHT protective corridor (11,000 acres): surface, 

overhead; and underground ROWs would be allowed with 

mitigation for disturbance within the protective corridor 

	 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSR corridors (32,000 acres): 

ROWs must maintain/enhance the river segment's ORVs, freeflowing character, water quality, and tentative classification 

Several ROW avoidance areas overlap; where this occurs, all 

avoidance stipulations must be met. In addition, some ROW 

avoidance areas overlap with ROW exclusion areas; where this 

occurs, the more restrictive exclusion management applies. See Map 

70 for locations of ROW avoidance areas. 

2-171 August 2010 
 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Land Use Authorizations 

LA-II-A- 2. The following areas would be exclusion areas for ROW 

(94,000 acres); they would not be available for ROWs under any 

conditions: 

 WSAs 

See Map 75 for locations of ROW exclusion areas. 

LA-II-A- 3. Designate the following ROW corridors for utilities (e.g., 

transmission and phone lines, oil/gas pipelines): 

 Pilgrim Gulch 

 Shoestring 

 Saylor Creek 

 Balanced Rock 

 Jarbidge 

 China Mountain 

See Map 77 for locations of ROW corridors. 

LA-II-A- 4. New communication sites can be considered throughout 

the planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance 

areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. 

LA-II-A- 5. Wind farms can be considered throughout the planning 

area, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance areas and 

outside ROW exclusion areas (Map 80). 

LA-II-A- 6. ROWs for roads could be considered throughout the 

planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance, 

outside ROW exclusion areas, and consistent with the 

Transportation and Travel section. 

Management Actions 

LA-II-MA- 1. ROW construction and maintenance activities should 

avoid disturbing special status species during important seasonal 

periods, unless the disturbance can be mitigated (Appendix H). 

LA-II-MA- 2. Locate new transmission and phone lines, 

communications towers, meteorological towers, and wind turbines 

more than 1 mile from active sage-grouse leks. 

LA-II-MA- 3. Design new communication sites to mitigate impacts to 

special status species and their habitats where practical. 

LA-II-MA- 4. Restrict wind turbines and meteorological towers from 

occupied habitat for Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and 

Candidate species where their direct adverse effects cannot be 

mitigated. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

August 2010 2-172 
	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Land Use Authorizations 

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. 

Allocations 

LA-III-A- 1. The following areas would be avoidance areas for ROWs 

(880,000 acres); ROWs would be allowed in these areas only if the 

avoidance stipulations are met and if the area is not identified for 

ROW exclusion: 

 Areas within USAF MOAs (852,000 acres): structures must be 

lower than 100 feet above ground level 

	 Oregon NHT protective corridor (11,000 acres): new surface or 

overhead ROWs would follow existing ROW or disturbance 

corridors; underground ROWs would be allowed with mitigation 

for disturbance within the protective corridor 

	 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSR corridors (32,000 acres): 

ROWs must maintain/enhance the river segment's ORVs, freeflowing character, water quality, and tentative classification 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC (57,000 acres): no new overhead 

ROWs would be allowed 

 Salmon Falls Creek ACEC (2,700 acres): new ROWs would be 

restricted to ROW corridors and locations of existing ROWs 

Several ROW avoidance areas overlap; where this occurs, all 

avoidance stipulations must be met. In addition, some ROW 

avoidance areas overlap with ROW exclusion areas; where this 

occurs, the more restrictive exclusion management applies. See Map 

71 for locations of ROW avoidance areas. 

LA-III-A- 2. The following areas would be exclusion areas for ROW 

(95,000 acres); they would not be available for ROWs under any 

conditions: 

 Sand Point ACEC 

 WSAs 

See Map 74 for locations of ROW exclusion areas. 

LA-III-A- 3. Designate the following ROW corridors for utilities (e.g., 

transmission and phone lines, oil/gas pipelines): 

 Pilgrim Gulch 

 Shoestring 

 Saylor Creek 

 Balanced Rock 

 Jarbidge 

See Map 77 for locations of ROW corridors. 

LA-III-A- 4. New communication sites can be considered throughout 

the planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance 

areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. 

LA-III-A- 5. Wind farms can be considered in areas with annual or 

non-native vegetation communities, consistent with stipulations for 

ROW avoidance areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. Map 81 

displays areas meeting these criteria in 2009; the map can be 

updated as vegetation conditions change on the ground. 

LA-III-A- 6. ROWs for roads could be considered throughout the 

planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance, 

outside ROW exclusion areas, and consistent with the 

Transportation and Travel section. 

2-173 August 2010 
 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Land Use Authorizations 

Management Actions 

LA-III-MA- 1. ROW construction and maintenance activities should 

avoid disturbing special status species during important seasonal 

periods, unless the disturbance can be mitigated (Appendix H). 

LA-III-MA- 2. Locate new transmission and phone lines, 

communications towers, meteorological towers, and wind turbines 

more than 3 miles from active sage-grouse leks. 

LA-III-MA- 3. Design new communication sites to mitigate impacts to 

special status species and their habitats where practical. 

LA-III-MA- 4. 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. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

LA-IV-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. 

Allocations 

LA-IV-A- 1. The following areas would be avoidance areas for 

ROWs (896,000 acres); ROWs would be allowed in these areas only 

if the avoidance stipulations are met and if the area is not identified 

for ROW exclusion: 

 Areas within USAF MOAs (852,000 acres): structures must be 

lower than 100 feet above ground level 

	 Oregon NHT protective corridor (11,000 acres): new surface or 

overhead ROWs would follow existing ROW or disturbance 

corridors; underground ROWs would be allowed with mitigation 

for disturbance within the protective corridor 

	 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSR corridors (32,000 acres): 

ROWs must maintain/enhance the river segment's ORVs, freeflowing character, water quality, and tentative classification 

	 Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC (123,000 acres): new ROWs would be 

restricted to ROW corridors and locations of existing ROWs 

Several ROW avoidance areas overlap; where this occurs, all 

avoidance stipulations must be met. In addition, some ROW 

avoidance areas overlap with ROW exclusion areas; where this 

occurs, the more restrictive exclusion management applies. See Map 

72 for locations of ROW avoidance areas. 

LA-IV-A- 2. The following areas would be exclusion areas for ROW 

(148,000 acres); they would not be available for ROWs under any 

conditions: 

 Sand Point ACEC 

 WSAs 

 Non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics 

See Map 76 for locations of ROW exclusion areas.
 

LA-IV-A- 3. Designate the following ROW corridors for utilities (e.g., 

transmission and phone lines, oil/gas pipelines): 

 Pilgrim Gulch 

August 2010	 2-174 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Land Use Authorizations 

 Shoestring 

 Saylor Creek 

 Balanced Rock 

 Jarbidge 

See Map 77 for locations of ROW corridors. 

LA-IV-A- 4. New communication sites can be considered throughout 

the planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance 

areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. 

LA-IV-A- 5. Wind farms can be considered in areas with annual or 

non-native perennial communities, consistent with stipulations for 

ROW avoidance areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. Map 82 

displays areas meeting these criteria in 2009; the map can be 

updated as vegetation conditions change on the ground. 

LA-IV-A- 6. ROWs for roads could be considered throughout the 

planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance, 

outside ROW exclusion areas, and consistent with the 

Transportation and Travel section. 

Management Actions 

LA-IV-MA- 1. ROW construction and maintenance activities should 

avoid disturbing special status species during important seasonal 

periods, unless the disturbance can be mitigated (Appendix H). 

LA-IV-MA- 2. Locate new transmission and phone lines, 

communications towers, meteorological towers, and wind turbines 

more than 5 miles from active sage-grouse leks. 

LA-IV-MA- 3. Do not locate new communication sites in special 

status species habitat if the project would negatively affect special 

status species or their habitat, unless those impacts can be 

mitigated. 

LA-IV-MA- 4. Restrict wind energy site testing and monitoring and 

wind energy development from occupied and suitable habitat for 

special status species, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources where 

their direct and indirect adverse effects cannot be mitigated. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

LA-V-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. 

Allocations 

LA-V-A- 1. The following areas would be avoidance areas for ROWs 

(1,229,000 acres); ROWs would be allowed in these areas only if the 

avoidance stipulations are met and if the area is not identified for 

ROW exclusion: 

 Areas within USAF MOAs (852,000 acres): structures must be 

lower than 100 feet above ground level 

 Oregon NHT protective corridor (11,000 acres): new surface or 

overhead ROWs would follow existing ROW or disturbance 

2-175 August 2010 
 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses

Land Use Authorizations 

August 2010 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

corridors; underground ROWs would be allowed with mitigation 

for disturbance within the protective corridor 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSR corridors (32,000 acres): 

ROWs must maintain/enhance the river segment's ORVs, freeflowing character, water quality, and tentative classification 

 Sagebrush Sea ACEC (958,000 acres): new ROWs would be 

restricted to ROW corridors and locations of existing ROWs 

Several ROW avoidance areas overlap; where this occurs, all 

avoidance stipulations must be met. In addition, some ROW 

avoidance areas overlap with ROW exclusion areas; where this 

occurs, the more restrictive exclusion management applies. See Map 

73 for locations of ROW avoidance areas. 

LA-V-A- 2. The following areas would be exclusion areas for ROW 

(148,000 acres); they would not be available for ROWs under any 

conditions: 

 Sand Point ACEC 

 WSAs 

 Non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics 

See Map 76 for locations of ROW exclusion areas. 

LA-V-A- 3. Designate the following ROW corridors for utilities (e.g., 

transmission and phone lines, oil/gas pipelines): 

 Pilgrim Gulch 

 Shoestring 

 Balanced Rock 

 Jarbidge 

See Map 77 for locations of ROW corridors. 

LA-V-A- 4. New communication sites can be considered throughout 

the planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance 

areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. 

LA-V-A- 5. Wind farms can be considered in areas with annual or 

non-native perennial vegetation, consistent with stipulations for ROW 

avoidance areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. Map 83 displays 

areas meeting these criteria in 2009; the map can be updated as 

vegetation conditions change on the ground. 

LA-V-A- 6. ROWs for roads could be considered throughout the 

planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance, 

outside ROW exclusion areas, and consistent with the 

Transportation and Travel section. 

Management Actions 

LA-V-MA- 1. ROW construction and maintenance activities should 

avoid disturbing special status species during important seasonal 

periods, unless the disturbance can be mitigated (Appendix H). 

LA-V-MA- 2. Locate new transmission and phone lines, 

communications towers, meteorological towers, and wind turbines 

more than 5 miles from active sage-grouse leks. 

LA-V-MA- 3. Do not locate new communication sites in special 

status species habitat if the project would negatively affect special 

status species or their habitat. 

2-176 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Land Tenure 

LA-V-MA- 4. Restrict wind energy site testing and monitoring and 

wind energy development from occupied and suitable habitat for 

special status species, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources where 

their direct and indirect adverse effects cannot be mitigated. 

2.4.5. Land Tenure 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

LT-NA-O- 1. Retain public lands 

in Federal ownership to be 

managed by BLM according to 

the principles of multiple use 

and sustained yield, except 

those lands specifically 

identified in the plan or 

amendment as transfer areas. 

Allocations 

LT-NA-A- 1. Consider for transfer from federal ownership: 

 540 acres of public land through sale (T1; MUAs 4, 6, 7, 12, and 

13), 

 1,600 acres through sale or exchange (T2; MUAs 4, 6, 7, 15, and 

16), and 

 2,820 acres through exchange (T3; MUAs 7, 11, and 12). 

 See Map 4 for MUA boundaries. 

LT-NA-A- 2. Retain 1,301,550 acres of public lands across all MUAs, 

including all lands in the Bruneau Known Geothermal Resource Area 

and all subsurface ownership in MUA 15 (Map 4). 

LT-NA-A- 3. Make available 66,990 acres of land for potential Desert 

Land Entry Act of 1877 (DLE) /Carey Act of 1894 (CA) development 

(T4; MUAs 4, 6, and 7). 

See Map 84 for locations of Land Tenure Zones T1, T2, T3, and T4. 

LT-NA-A- 4. Close 1,306,510 acres to agricultural entry in MUAs 4, 

6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 (Map 4). 

LT-NA-A- 5. Public lands that are to be retained in federal ownership 

may be considered for R&PP leases, private exchanges and state 

exchanges following amendment procedures. 

Management Actions 

Acquisition

LT-NA-MA- 1. Lands may be acquired by BLM as authorized by law, 

but only within retention areas. Lands to be acquired through 

exchange or purchase would be done to benefit one or more of the 

resource programs including, but not limited to cultural, 

paleontological, recreation, wildlife, and soils. 

LT-NA-MA- 2. Continue an ongoing program of identifying and 

obtaining BLM access across non-bureau lands where needed to 

accomplish BLM objectives. 

Transfer 

LT-NA-MA- 3. Transfer of public land within a transfer area may be 

accomplished by any means authorized by law. 

2-177 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resource Uses

Land Tenure 

August 2010 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

LT-NA-MA- 4. Lands that are mineral in character areas, WSAs, or 

designated wilderness areas would not be identified as transfer 

areas. 

LT-NA-MA- 5. In agricultural development areas, maintain control of 

all lands necessary to prevent erosion resulting from irrigation and 

farming practices. These might include, but would not be limited to 

vegetation strips, slopes, drainage ways, and flood plains. 

LT-NA-MA- 6. Manage transfer areas until transfer of title occurs. 

Management actions would be taken as necessary to meet resource 

or user needs. Public investments in transfer areas would be kept to 

a minimum. 

LT-NA-MA- 7. When withdrawals are revoked, the lands continue to 

be in a retention category. 

LT-NA-MA- 8. All disposals of public lands must be consistent with 

the planning requirements of FLPMA and must also be evaluated 

through the environmental assessment process as required by 

NEPA. 

LT-NA-MA- 9. Consider the need to provide protection for existing 

rights, access, and future anticipated needs in all disposal actions. 

This protection would be provided for through the issuance of rightsof-way to existing users or reservations to the Federal government in 

areas of anticipated needs. 

LT-NA-MA- 10. Design special water runoff stipulations on 

transferred lands in MUA 6 to protect public lands adjacent to and 

down slope of transfer lands (Map 4). 

Exchange

LT-NA-MA- 11. Before an exchange can be completed, the BLM 

must determine that the public interest would be well served by 

making the exchange. 

LT-NA-MA- 12. Full consideration for exchange would be given to 

improve Federal land management and the needs of State and local 

publics through an evaluation of the needs for lands for economic 

development, community expansion, recreation areas or 

opportunities, food, fiber, minerals, and wildlife. 

LT-NA-MA- 13. Any lands delineated for transfer in the exchange 

only category (T3) but not needed for the exchange would be 

retained in federal ownership. 

LT-NA-MA- 14. Exchanges would be allowed within crucial wildlife 

habitat only if the wildlife value of the offered lands meets or exceeds 

the wildlife value of the selected lands. Crucial wildlife habitat will not 

be sold. 

Desert Land Entry and Carey Acts (DLE/CA) 

LT-NA-MA- 15. Consideration for allowing the use of public lands for 

agricultural development under DLE/CA generally fall into the 

following four steps: 

2-178 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Land Tenure 

	 Lands must be identified for disposal through the land use 

planning process. 

	 Lands must be desert in character and physically suited for 

agricultural development by irrigation. The following criteria are 

used to determine the suitability classification of potential 

agricultural lands: 

- If there is 60% or more Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 

Class I, II, or III soils in a 40-acre parcel, the parcel may be 

classified suitable for agriculture development. If there is 

more than 40% SCS Class IV or poorer soils in each 40-acre 

parcel, the entire parcel is unsuitable for classification. 

- Cropland in Capability Classes II through V (particularly 

subclass "e") that has an average annual erosion rate of 

more than three times that at which soil forms (4 to 5 tons 

per acre per year on the average for deep soils, lower for 

shallower soils) would be found unsuitable for agricultural 

development. 

- Any public lands containing known archaeological, 

paleontological, or historical values determined to be unique 

or possibly significant would be found unsuitable for disposal 

for agricultural development pending further analysis. 

- Any public lands where rare, Endangered, Threatened, or 

Sensitive species of plants or animals are known to live (or 

nest) would be found unsuitable for disposal for agricultural 

development, unless mitigation is possible. 

- Certain tracts of land identified for community needs such as 

landfills, gravel pits, sewage plants, schools, etc., would be 

found unsuitable for disposal for agriculture. 

- Certain tracts of land identified as valuable for wildlife habitat 

would be found unsuitable for disposal for agricultural 

development. 

- Public land that does not qualify for agricultural use or 

disposal under DLE/CA because of other public purpose 

would be found unsuitable for disposal under these laws. 

Those lands that became fragmented as a result of a 

DLE/CA action and not needed for other public purposes 

may be considered for disposal through sale or exchange. 

- Certain tracts of land identified as having agricultural 

limitations based on slope and/or flood plain management 

would be found unsuitable for agricultural development. 

	 An economic analysis of lands considered for agricultural 

development must show a high likelihood that the lands can be 

farmed at a profit over a long term. 

	 Applicants for agricultural development must show a legal right 

to appropriate water including a permit to drill a well if part of the 

operation. Applications for agricultural development that would 

contribute to the mining of groundwater would not be allowed. 

The Idaho Supreme Court Decision #13794 regarding use of 

Snake River water above Swan Falls Dam for agricultural 

development would be resolved before proceeding with the 

allowance to enter the land. 

	 The entryman for agricultural development must show 

compliance with cultivation, fund expenditure, irrigation system 

development, and publication requirements, and payment of 

required fees to obtain patent to the land. 

2-179 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Land Tenure 

LT-NA-MA- 16. Under CA development, the Bureau's primary 

concerns are retention vs. disposal determination and physical 

suitability of the land. Application processing and feasibility study 

evaluations are the responsibility of the State of Idaho. 

LT-NA-MA- 17. Continue to work closely with IDWR under terms of a 

cooperative agreement to process DLE/CA applications. 

LT-NA-MA- 18. Public lands under DLE/CA applications that are 

relinquished would generally revert to a retention category and would 

not be made available for further application for agricultural 

purposes. Some relinquished lands may be identified for possible 

transfer via exchange only. 

Management Common to the No Action and All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

See goals in Management Specific to the No Action Alternative and Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objectives in Management 

Specific to the No Action 

Alternative and Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

See objectives specific to each alternative and in Management 

Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

LT-C-MA- 1. Sales of public lands can be made upon consideration 

of the following criteria: 

 The parcel, because of its location or other characteristics, is 

difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, 

and is not suitable for management by another Federal 

department or agency; or 

	 The parcel was acquired for a specific purpose and is no longer 

required for that or any other Federal purpose; or 

	 Disposal of the parcel will serve important public objectives, 

including but not limited to, expansion of communities and 

economic development which cannot be achieved prudently or 

feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other 

public objectives and values. These include, but are not limited 

to, wildlife, grazing, recreation, and scenic values which would 

be served by maintaining such parcel in Federal ownership. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

LT-CA-G- 1. Manage land tenure to provide for public ownership of lands with high resource and multiple 

use values and to improve management efficiency. 

Objective 

LT-CA-O- 1. Improve BLM's 

ability to manage the land base 

and resource values, and help 

meet resource objectives 

through land tenure 

adjustments. 

Allocations 

LT-CA-A- 1. No new DLE/CA applications would be accepted for 

lands within the planning area. 

Management Actions 

LT-CA-MA- 1. Each land tenure adjustment proposal would be 

reviewed on a case-by-case basis and evaluated to see if it meets 

August 2010	 2-180 
 

 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Land Tenure 

the intent of FLPMA, the guidelines for the relevant land tenure 

zones, and the priorities for retention, disposal, and acquisition. 

Before approval, land tenure adjustment proposals would be 

evaluated through the environmental analysis process as required by 

NEPA. 

LT-CA-MA- 2. Land tenure adjustments with tribes, Federal and 

State agencies, or State and local governments would receive 

priority over land tenure adjustments with private individuals or 

businesses. 

LT-CA-MA- 3. Initiate tribal consultation early in the process for any 

land tenure adjustments. 

LT-CA-MA- 4. In general, lands with the following characteristics 

would be retained in Federal ownership: 

 Those lands specifically identified by the tribes as having special 

importance related to treaty and/or traditional uses/values; 

 Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate species 

habitat; 

 National Register eligible and listed properties; and 

 Wildlife Tracts. 

These lands could be disposed of if the transaction helped achieve 

resource objectives; see the Cultural Resources section for 

additional guidance for disposal of lands containing National Register 

properties or other important cultural resources. Lands acquired 

under Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) must be retained. 

LT-CA-MA- 5. BLM’s acquisition priorities (not in priority order) 

would include:
 

 Land identified by Shoshone-Paiute Tribes or ShoshoneBannock Tribes; 

 Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, or Candidate species 

habitat; 

 BLM Type 2 Sensitive species habitat; 

 Lands within special designations; 

 Big game winter range; 

 Riparian areas; 

 Lands containing known archaeological, paleontological, or 

historical values determined to be unique or of traditional or 

scientific importance; 

 Lands that would provide public access to public lands, including 

but not limited to river access; 

 Lands that would help consolidate public land; 

 Lands that would help improve livestock grazing management; 

and 

 Lands in Zones 1 and 2. 

LT-CA-MA- 6. Vegetation treatments, construction of new range 

infrastructure, and other public land improvements in areas involved 

in a land tenure transaction would be kept to a minimum. 

LT-CA-MA- 7. Withdrawals on lands being considered for disposal 

must be revoked prior to disposal. 

2-181 August 2010 
 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Land Tenure 

LT-CA-MA- 8. Disposal of public lands would be subject to all valid 

existing rights, including existing rights-of-way. Existing public 

access through those lands may be retained if necessary for BLM 

management or for accommodating uses. 

LT-CA-MA- 9. Transactions within RCAs must follow the guidelines 

in the ARMS (Appendix D). 

LT-CA-MA- 10. Access across non-BLM lands would be identified 

and obtained where needed to accomplish BLM objectives, including 

access to the Bruneau and Snake Rivers and Wildlife Tracts, through 

easements or acquisitions. 

LT-CA-MA- 11. Future access needs and priorities would be 

coordinated with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Shoshone-Paiute 

Tribes, Idaho and Nevada state agencies, and local governments to 

ensure resource values are evaluated along with public needs. 

LT-CA-MA- 12. BLM would seek to reduce or eliminate the split 

mineral estate whenever the opportunity arises. 

LT-CA-MA- 13. DLE/CA applications submitted prior to 2009 (Case 

numbers IDD-7401, IDI-7402, IDI-27888, and IDI-27889) would be 

processed within 10 years of the signing of the ROD, and those 

lands meeting the criteria of the Acts would be disposed. 

LT-CA-MA- 14. Manage newly acquired lands and lands that have 

been returned to BLM management through revocation of 

withdrawals in accordance with RMP management for adjacent 

lands. 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

LT-I-A- 1. Zone 1 consists of lands for retention that are not available 

for disposal (1,109,000 acres). Zone 1 lands include the following: 

 WSAs; 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor; 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs; 

 The Bruneau-Jarbidge, Lower Bruneau Canyon, and Sand Point 

ACECs; 

 Saylor Creek HMA; 

 Non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics; 

and 

 Other consolidated public lands. 

LT-I-A- 2. Zone 2 consists of lands for consolidation within the 

planning area (244,000 acres); these can be exchanged for other 

lands within Zones 1 and 2 or offered as R&PP leases. Zone 2 lands 

include the following: 

 Selected lands near Indian Cove, Hammett, Glenns Ferry, and 

King Hill; 

August 2010 2-182 
 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Land Tenure 

 Selected lands in the northeast corner of the planning area;
 

 Selected lands in the Jarbidge Foothills;
 

 Selected lands between Clover Creek and Cedar Creek 

Reservoir; and 

 Selected lands near the Jarbidge River in Nevada. 

LT-I-A- 3. Zone 3 consists of lands for sale, exchange for lands 

within Zones 1 and 2 or lands outside the planning area, or R&PP 

lease (20,000 acres). Zone 3 lands include: 

 Selected lands near Hammett, Glenns Ferry, King Hill, and 

Roseworth. 

See Map 85 for locations of Land Tenure Zones 1, 2, and 3. 

LT-I-A- 4. 80 acres of public lands within Zone 3, identified for 

disposal prior to July 25, 2000, would continue to be available for 

disposal under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 

(FLTFA; Appendix O). Proceeds from the sale or exchange of these 

public lands may be used to purchase additional public lands, as 

provided for in FLTFA. 

LT-I-A- 5. R&PP leases to State and local governments and nonprofit organizations would be considered on a case-by-case basis on 

lands in Zones 2 and 3. 

Management Actions 

See management actions in Management Common to the No Action 

and All Action Alternatives and Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

LT-II-A- 1. Zone 1 consists of lands for retention that are not 

available for disposal (953,000 acres). Zone 1 lands include the 

following: 

 WSAs; 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor; 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs; 

 Saylor Creek Herd Area; and 

 Other consolidated public lands. 

LT-II-A- 2. Zone 2 consists of lands for consolidation within the 

planning area (374,000 acres); these can be exchanged for other 

lands within Zones 1 and 2 or offered as R&PP leases. Zone 2 lands 

include the following: 

 Selected lands near Indian Cove and Hammett, 

 Selected lands in the northeast corner of the planning area,
 

 Selected lands in the Jarbidge Foothills,
 

 Selected lands between Clover Creek and Cedar Creek 

Reservoir, 

2-183 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Land Tenure 

 Selected lands near the Jarbidge River in Nevada, and 

 Lands adjacent to private lands not in Zone 3. 

LT-II-A- 3. Zone 3 consists of lands for sale, exchange for lands 

within Zones 1 and 2 or lands outside the planning area, or R&PP 

lease (46,000 acres). Zone 3 lands include: 

 Selected lands near Hammett, Glenns Ferry, King Hill, and 

Roseworth; and 

 Selected lands between Castleford and Hagerman. 

See Map 86 for locations of Land Tenure Zones 1, 2, and 3. 

LT-II-A- 4. 339 acres of public lands within Zone 3, identified for 

disposal prior to July 25, 2000, would continue to be available for 

disposal under FLTFA (Appendix O). Proceeds from the sale or 

exchange of these public lands may be used to purchase additional 

public lands, as provided for in FLTFA. 

LT-II-A- 5. R&PP leases to State and local governments and nonprofit organizations would be considered on a case-by-case basis on 

lands in Zones 2 and 3. 

Management Actions 

See management actions in Management Common to the No Action 

and All Action Alternatives and Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

LT-III-A- 1. Zone 1 consists of lands for retention that are not 

available for disposal (1,109,000 acres). Zone 1 lands include the 

following: 

 WSAs; 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor; 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs; 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge and Sand Point ACECs; 

 Saylor Creek HMA; and 

 Other consolidated public lands. 

LT-III-A- 2. Zone 2 consists of lands for consolidation within the 

planning area (244,000 acres); these can be exchanged for other 

lands within Zones 1 and 2 or offered as R&PP leases. Zone 2 lands 

include the following: 

 Selected lands near Indian Cove, Hammett, Glenns Ferry, and 

King Hill; 

 Selected lands in the northeast corner of the planning area; 

 Selected lands in the Jarbidge Foothills; 

 Selected lands between Clover Creek and Cedar Creek 

Reservoir; and 

 Selected lands near the Jarbidge River in Nevada. 

August 2010 2-184 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Land Tenure 

LT-III-A- 3. Zone 3 consists of lands for sale, exchange for lands 

within Zones 1 and 2 or lands outside the planning area, or R&PP 

lease (20,000 acres). Zone 3 lands include: 

 Selected lands near Hammett, Glenns Ferry, King Hill, and 

Roseworth. 

See Map 87 for locations of Land Tenure Zones 1, 2, and 3. 

LT-III-A- 4. 80 acres of public lands within Zone 3, identified for 

disposal prior to July 25, 2000, would continue to be available for 

disposal under FLTFA (Appendix O). Proceeds from the sale or 

exchange of these public lands may be used to purchase additional 

public lands, as provided for in FLTFA. 

LT-III-A- 5. R&PP leases to State and local governments and nonprofit organizations would be considered on a case-by-case basis on 

lands in Zones 2 and 3. 

Management Actions 

See management actions in Management Common to the No Action 

and All Action Alternatives and Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

LT-IV-A- 1. Zone 1 consists of lands for retention that are not 

available for disposal (1,129,000 acres). Zone 1 lands include the 

following: 

 WSAs; 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor; 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs; 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge, Inside Desert, Lower Bruneau Canyon, and 

Sand Point ACECs; 

 Saylor Creek HMA; 

 Non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics; 

and 

 Other consolidated public lands. 

LT-IV-A- 2. Zone 2 consists of lands for consolidation within the 

planning area (229,000 acres); these can be exchanged for other 

lands within Zones 1 and 2 or offered as R&PP leases. Zone 2 lands 

include the following: 

 Selected lands near Glenns Ferry and Roseworth, 

 Selected lands in the northeast corner of the planning area, 

 Selected lands in the Jarbidge Foothills, and 

 Selected lands between Clover Creek and Cedar Creek 

Reservoir. 

2-185 August 2010 
 


 


 


 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Land Tenure 

LT-IV-A- 3. Zone 3 consists of lands for sale, exchange for lands 

within Zones 1 and 2 or lands outside the planning area, or R&PP 

lease (16,000 acres). Zone 3 lands include: 

 Selected lands near Hammett, Glenns Ferry, and King Hill. 

See Map 88 for locations of Land Tenure Zones 1, 2, and 3.
 

LT-IV-A- 4. 39 acres of public lands within Zone 3, identified for 

disposal prior to July 25, 2000, would continue to be available for 

disposal under FLTFA (Appendix O). Proceeds from the sale or 

exchange of these public lands may be used to purchase additional 

public lands, as provided for in FLTFA.
 

LT-IV-A- 5. R&PP leases to State and local governments and nonprofit organizations would be considered on a case-by-case basis on 

lands in Zones 2 and 3.
 

Management Actions 

See management actions in Management Common to the No Action 

and All Action Alternatives and Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

LT-V-A- 1. Zone 1 consists of lands for retention that are not 

available for disposal (1,279,000 acres). Zone 1 lands include the 

following: 

 WSAs; 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor; 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs; 

 Sand Point, Lower Bruneau Canyon, and Sagebrush Sea 

ACECs; 

 Saylor Creek HMA; 

 Non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics; 

and 

 Other consolidated public lands. 

LT-V-A- 2. Zone 2 consists of lands for consolidation within the 

planning area (95,000 acres); these can be exchanged for other 

lands within zones 1 and 2 or offered as R&PP leases. Zone 2 lands 

include: 

 Selected lands near Hammett, Glenns Ferry, and King Hill; and 

 Selected lands in the northeast corner of the planning area. 

LT-V-A- 3. Zone 3 consists of lands for sale, exchange for lands 

within Zones 1 and 2 or lands outside the planning area, or R&PP 

lease. No lands are identified for inclusion in Zone 3. 

See Map 89 for locations of Land Tenure Zones 1, 2, and 3. 

August 2010 2-186 
 

 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Leasable Minerals 

LT-V-A- 4. R&PP leases to State and local governments and nonprofit organizations would be considered on a case-by-case basis on 

lands in Zone 2. 

Management Actions 

See management actions in Management Common to the No Action 

and All Action Alternatives and Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

2.4.6. Minerals 

2.4.6.1. Leasable Minerals 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

LE-NA-O- 1. Make 1,307,000 

acres of the area available for 

leasable mineral exploration and 

development across all MUAs. 

Allocations 

LE-NA-A- 1. Generally, the public lands may be considered for 

energy and minerals leasing and sale. 

LE-NA-A- 2. 1,302,525 acres would be open to leasing in MUAs 4, 

6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 (Map 4). 

LE-NA-A- 3. Crucial wildlife habitats shown below would be open to 

mineral leasing with No Surface Occupancy (NSO) during the 

following time periods: 

 December through April in mule deer winter range;
 

 December through April in pronghorn winter range;
 

 May through June in pronghorn fawning range; 

 December through mid February in sage-grouse and sharp-tailed 

grouse winter range; 

 Mid February through June in sage-grouse and sharp-tailed 

grouse breeding grounds; 

 April through June in within 2 miles of leks in sage-grouse and 

sharp-tailed grouse nesting and brood rearing habitat; 

 December through March in bald eagle and peregrine falcon 

winter habitat; 

 February through June within 0.75 miles of golden eagle nests; 

 Mid March through June within 0.75 miles of ferruginous hawk, 

prairie falcon, and long-billed curlew nests; 

 Mid March through June within 0.25 miles of white-faced ibis and 

Western burrowing owl nests; and 

 Mid April through August within 0.75 miles of osprey nests. 

LE-NA-A- 4. The following 284,000 acres in MUAs 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 

12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 would be open to mineral leasing with NSO 

year round:
 

 Oregon Trail; 

 Paleontological sites and cultural resource complexes; 

 Sand Point ACEC; 

 Power site in MUA 9; 

 WSAs; 

2-187 August 2010 

 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Leasable Minerals 

 Bruneau, Jarbidge, Arch, and Salmon Falls Canyons; 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge SRMA; 

 Bighorn sheep habitat; and
 

 Within 500 feet of reservoirs, ponds, lakes, streams, wetlands, 

marshes, and riparian areas. 

LE-NA-A- 5. In addition, cultural sites identified as special MUAs in 

the RMP and areas within 1 mile of bald eagle and peregrine falcon 

nests, within essential nesting habitat for other birds of prey, and 

within 0.5 miles of heron rookeries would also be open to mineral 

leasing with no surface occupancy year round. 

LE-NA-A- 6. 104,097 acres are closed to leasables in MUAs 4, 6, 7, 

9, 10, 12, 15, and 16. 

Management Actions 

LE-NA-MA- 1. Approval of an application for lease or sale of energy 

and minerals is subject to an environmental analysis and may 

include stipulations to protect other resources. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

LE-CA-G- 1. Provide leasable mineral development opportunities where they are compatible with other 

resources. 

Objective 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Allocations 

LE-CA-A- 1. WSAs would be closed to mineral leasing. 

Additional allocations for leasable minerals are found in management 

specific to each alternative. 

Management Actions 

LE-CA-MA- 1. The terms and conditions of the standard lease form 

(Form 3100-11, Offer to Lease and Lease for Oil and Gas) or future 

versions of the form would apply to all mineral leases. 

LE-CA-MA- 2. The following stipulations for Endangered Species Act 

of 1973 (ESA) Section 7 Consultation and Cultural Resource 

Protection would be used unless new stipulations are directed by 

BLM policy: 

 ESA Section 7 Consultation Stipulation – The lease area may 

now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats 

determined to be Threatened, Endangered or other special 

status species. BLM may recommend modifications to 

exploration and development proposals to further its 

conservation and management objective to avoid BLM-approved 

activity that would contribute to a need to list such a species or 

their habitat. BLM may require modifications to or disapprove 

proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the 

continued existence of a proposed or listed Threatened or 

Endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. BLM 

would not approve any ground-disturbing activity that may affect 

August 2010 2-188 
 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Leasable Minerals 

any such species or critical habitat until it completes its 

obligations under applicable requirements of the ESA, including 

completion of any required procedure for conference or 

consultation. 

	 Cultural Resource Protection Stipulation – This lease may be 

found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected 

under NHPA, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Executive 

Order 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM 

would not approve any ground- disturbing activities that may 

affect any such properties or resources until it completes its 

obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and 

other authorities. The BLM may require modification to 

exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, 

or disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects 

that cannot be successfully avoided, minimized, or mitigated. 

LE-CA-MA- 3. Exceptions, waivers, and modifications may not be 

made for the following lease stipulations: 

 Controlled Surface Use Stipulation for Special Status Species 

Habitat: ESA Section 7 Consultation 

	 Controlled Surface Use Stipulation for Cultural Resources: 

Cultural Resource Protection Stipulation 

LE-CA-MA- 4. Site-specific resource condition objectives, lease 

stipulations, conditions of approval, and actions to achieve those 

objectives would be identified on a case-by-case basis. 

LE-CA-MA- 5. Mineral leasing and development decisions also apply 

to geophysical exploration. 

LE-CA-MA- 6. Exploration and development of non-energy leasable 

minerals would follow standard stipulations outlined above; additional 

stipulations would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

LE-I-O- 1. Facilitate reasonable, 

economical, and 

environmentally sound 

exploration and development of 

leasable minerals where 

compatible with resource 

objectives. 

Allocations 

LE-I-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be open to 

mineral leasing, subject to laws, regulations, and formal orders; the 

terms and conditions of the standard lease form; and stipulations for 

ESA Section 7 Consultation and Cultural Resource Protection. Areas 

that would be subject to additional moderate or major constraints 

specific to Alternative I are as follows: 

 Moderate constraints: Big game winter range (December through 

March), key sage-grouse habitat (mid February through mid 

June), and RCAs in bull trout (August through November) and 

redband trout (May through June) spawning habitat would be 

open to mineral leasing with seasonal restrictions. RCAs would 

be open to mineral leasing, consistent with guidelines in the 

ARMS (Appendix D). 

2-189 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Leasable Minerals 

	 Major constraints: The Oregon NHT protective corridor and the 

Kelton and Toana Freight Road protective corridors would be 

open to mineral leasing with NSO. 

LE-I-A- 2. Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs; non-WSA lands 

managed for their wilderness characteristics; and the Lower Bruneau 

Canyon, Bruneau-Jarbidge, Middle Snake, Salmon Falls Creek, and 

Sand Point ACECs would be closed to mineral leasing. 

See Map 92 for locations of leasable mineral allocations. 

LE-I-A- 3. Areas open or closed to exploration and development of 

non-energy leasable minerals would follow allocations outlined 

above. 

Management Actions 

LE-I-MA- 1. Exceptions, waivers, or modifications may be made for 

lease stipulations as described below. Public review is required for 

exceptions, waivers, or modifications to stipulations that involve an 

issue of major concern to the public; documentation requirements 

would follow those outlined in 43 CFR 3101.1-4. 

	 NSO Stipulation for Oregon NHT Protective Corridor (13,000 

acres) – Surface occupancy is not allowed within the Oregon 

NHT protective corridor. 

- Exception: After coordination with SHPO, the authorized 

officer may grant an exception if an environmental review 

determines the action as proposed or conditioned would not 

impair the integrity of the trail. 

- Waiver: The authorized officer may grant a waiver if an 

environmental review determines the action as proposed or 

conditioned would only impact non-contributing trail 

segments. 

- Modification: This stipulation may not be modified. 

	 NSO Stipulation for Kelton and Toana Freight Roads (20,000 

acres) – Surface occupancy would not be allowed within the 

Kelton and Toana Freight Road protective corridors. 

- Exception: After coordination with SHPO, the authorized 

officer may grant an exception if an environmental review 

determines the action as proposed or conditioned would not 

impair the integrity of the trails. 

- Waiver: The authorized officer may grant a waiver if an 

environmental review determines the action as proposed or 

conditioned would only impact non-contributing trail 

segments. 

- Modification: This stipulation may not be modified. 

	 Seasonal Restriction Stipulation for Big Game Winter Range 

(536,000 acres), Key Habitat for Sage-Grouse (264,000 acres), 

and Redband Trout Spawning Habitat (7,000 acres) – No 

surface use would be allowed (e.g., exploration, construction, 

and drilling) within big game winter range from December 

through March, key sage-grouse habitat from mid February 

through mid June, or redband trout spawning habitat from May 

through June. 

August 2010	 2-190 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Leasable Minerals 

- Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if 

an environmental review determines the action as proposed 

or conditioned would not affect the species or habitat during 

the critical season. An exception may also be granted if the 

proponent, BLM, and state wildlife agencies negotiate 

compensation or mitigation that would offset the anticipated 

impact to the species or habitat. 

- Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if after discussion 

with state wildlife agencies it is determined the described 

lands are incapable of serving the long-term requirements of 

the species and these areas no longer warrant consideration 

of habitat. 

- Modification: The authorized officer may modify the size and 

shape of the area under seasonal restrictions if an 

environmental analysis indicates the actual habitat suitability 

for the species is different. Time periods may be modified 

based on studies documental local periods of actual use. 

 Seasonal Restriction Stipulation for Bull Trout Spawning Habitat 

(900 acres) – No surface use would be allowed (e.g., 

exploration, construction, and drilling) within RCAs in bull trout 

spawning habitat from August through November. 

- Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if 

an environmental review determines the action as proposed 

or conditioned would not affect the species or habitat during 

the critical season. An exception may also be granted if the 

proponent, BLM, FWS, and state wildlife agencies negotiate 

compensation or mitigation that would offset the anticipated 

impact to the species or habitat. 

- Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if after consulting 

with FWS and discussion with state wildlife agencies it is 

determined the described lands are incapable of serving the 

long-term requirements of the species and these areas no 

longer warrant consideration of habitat. 

- Modification: The authorized officer may modify the size and 

shape of the area under seasonal restrictions if an 

environmental analysis indicates the actual habitat suitability 

for the species is different. Time periods may be modified 

based on studies documenting local periods of actual use. 

 Controlled Surface Use Stipulation for Riparian Areas and 

Wetlands (53,000 acres) – Surface use within RCAs must be 

consistent with the guidelines in the ARMS (Appendix D). 

Exceptions, waivers, and modifications may not be made. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Leasable Minerals 

Objective 

LE-II-O- 1. Facilitate 

reasonable, economical, and 

environmentally sound 

exploration and development of 

leasable minerals where 

compatible with resource 

objectives. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Allocations 

LE-II-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be open to 

mineral leasing, subject to laws, regulations, and formal orders; the 

terms and conditions of the standard lease form; and stipulations for 

ESA Section 7 Consultation and Cultural Resource Protection. Areas 

that would be subject to additional moderate or major constraints 

specific to Alternative II are as follows: 

 Moderate constraints: RCAs would be open to mineral leasing, 

consistent with guidelines in the ARMS (Appendix D). 

	 Major constraints: The Oregon NHT protective corridor and 

eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs would be open to 

mineral leasing with NSO. 

See Map 93 for locations of leasable mineral allocations. 

LE-II-A- 2. Areas open or closed to exploration and development of 

non-energy leasable minerals would follow allocations outlined 

above. 

Management Actions 

LE-II-MA- 1. Exceptions, waivers, or modifications may be made for 

lease stipulations as described below. Public review is required for 

exceptions, waivers, or modifications to stipulations that involve an 

issue of major concern to the public; documentation requirements 

would follow those outlined in 43 CFR 3101.1-4. 

	 NSO Stipulation for Oregon NHT Protective Corridor (14,000 

acres) – Surface occupancy is not allowed within the Oregon 

NHT protective corridor. 

- Exception: After coordination with SHPO, the authorized 

officer may grant an exception if an environmental review 

determines the action as proposed or conditioned would not 

impair the integrity of the trail. 

- Waiver: The authorized officer may grant a waiver if an 

environmental review determines the action as proposed or 

conditioned would only impact non-contributing trail 

segments. 

- Modification: This stipulation may not be modified. 

	 NSO Stipulation for Eligible, Suitable, and Designated WSRs 

(15,000 acres) – Surface occupancy would not be allowed within 

the corridors of eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs. 

- Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if 

an environmental review determines the action as proposed 

or conditioned would not impair the area’s ORVs or its freeflowing nature. 

- Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the environmental 

analysis finds a portion of the area does not contain the 

ORVs for which it was designated. 

- Modification: This stipulation may not be modified. 

	 Controlled Surface Use Stipulation for Riparian Areas and 

Wetlands (58,000 acres) – Surface use within RCAs must be 

consistent with the guidelines in the ARMS (Appendix D). 

Exceptions, waivers, and modifications may not be made. 

August 2010	 2-192 
 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Leasable Minerals 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

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. 

Allocations 

LE-III-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be open to 

mineral leasing, subject to laws, regulations, and formal orders; and 

the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. However, 

exploration and development activities would not be allowed during 

fire restrictions. Areas that would be subject to additional major 

constraints specific to Alternative III are as follows: 

 Moderate constraints: RCAs would be open to mineral leasing, 

consistent with guidelines in the ARMS (Appendix D). 

	 Major constraints: The Oregon NHT protective corridor and 

eligible, suitable, designated WSRs would be open to mineral 

leasing with no surface occupancy. 

LE-III-A- 2. The Bruneau-Jarbidge and Sand Point ACECs would be 

closed to mineral leasing. 

See Map 93 for locations of leasable mineral allocations. 

LE-III-A- 3. Areas open or closed to exploration and development of 

non-energy leasable minerals would follow allocations outlined 

above. 

Management Actions 

LE-III-MA- 1. Exceptions, waivers, or modifications may be made for 

lease stipulations as described below. Public review is required for 

exceptions, waivers, or modifications to stipulations that involve an 

issue of major concern to the public; documentation requirements 

would follow those outlined in 43 CFR 3101.1-4. 

	 NSO Stipulation for Oregon NHT Protective Corridor (14,000 

acres) – Surface occupancy is not allowed within the Oregon 

NHT protective corridor. 

- Exception: After coordination with SHPO, the authorized 

officer may grant an exception if an environmental review 

determines the action as proposed or conditioned would not 

impair the integrity of the trail. 

- Waiver: The authorized officer may grant a waiver if an 

environmental review determines the action as proposed or 

conditioned would only impact non-contributing trail 

segments. 

- Modification: This stipulation may not be modified. 

	 NSO Stipulation for eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs 

(14,000 acres) – Surface occupancy would not be allowed within 

the corridors of eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs. 

- Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if 

an environmental review determines the action as proposed 

or conditioned would not impair the area’s ORVs or its freeflowing nature. 

2-193 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Leasable Minerals 

- Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the environmental 

analysis finds a portion of the area does not contain the 

ORVs for which it was designated. 

- Modification: This stipulation may not be modified. 

	 Controlled Surface Use Stipulation for Riparian Areas and 

Wetlands (58,000 acres) – Surface use within RCAs must be 

consistent with the guidelines in the ARMS (Appendix D). 

Exceptions, waivers, and modifications may not be made. 

LE-III-MA- 2. The authorized office may restrict surface use 

(exploration, construction, and drilling) during fire restrictions. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

LE-IV-O- 1. Facilitate 

reasonable, economical, and 

environmentally sound 

exploration and development of 

leasable minerals where 

compatible with resource 

objectives. 

Allocations 

LE-IV-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be open to 

mineral leasing, subject to laws, regulations, and formal orders; the 

terms and conditions of the standard lease form; and stipulations for 

ESA Section 7 Consultation and Cultural Resource Protection. Areas 

that would be subject to additional moderate or major constraints 

specific Alternative IV are as follows: 

 Moderate constraints: Big game winter range (December through 

March), key sage-grouse habitat (mid February through mid 

June), and RCAs in bull trout (August through November) and 

redband trout (May through June) spawning habitat would be 

open to mineral leasing with seasonal restrictions. RCAs would 

be open to mineral leasing, consistent with guidelines in the 

ARMS (Appendix D). 

	 Major constraints: The Oregon NHT protective corridor and the 

Kelton and Toana Freight Road protective corridors would be 

open to mineral leasing with NSO. 

LE-IV-A- 2. Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs; the Inside 

Desert, Lower Bruneau Canyon, Bruneau-Jarbidge, and Sand Point 

ACECs; and non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to mineral leasing. 

See Maps 94 and 95 for locations of leasable mineral allocations. 

LE-IV-A- 3. Areas open or closed to exploration and development of 

non-energy leasable minerals would follow allocations outlined 

above. 

Management Actions 

LE-IV-MA- 1. Exceptions, waivers, or modifications may be made for 

lease stipulations as described below. Public review is required for 

exceptions, waivers, or modifications to stipulations that involve an 

issue of major concern to the public; documentation requirements 

would follow those outlined in 43 CFR 3101.1-4. 

	 NSO Stipulation for Oregon NHT Protective Corridor (13,000 

acres) – Surface occupancy is not allowed within the Oregon 

NHT protective corridor. 

August 2010	 2-194 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Leasable Minerals 

- Exception: After coordination with SHPO, the authorized 

officer may grant an exception if an environmental review 

determines the action as proposed or conditioned would not 

impair the integrity of the trail. 

- Waiver: The authorized officer may grant a waiver if an 

environmental review determines the action as proposed or 

conditioned would only impact non-contributing trail 

segments. 

- Modification: This stipulation may not be modified. 

	 NSO Stipulation for Kelton and Toana Freight Roads (20,000 

acres) – Surface occupancy would not be allowed within the 

Kelton and Toana Freight Road protective corridors. 

- Exception: After coordination with SHPO, the authorized 

officer may grant an exception if an environmental review 

determines the action as proposed or conditioned would not 

impair the integrity of the trails. 

- Waiver: The authorized officer may grant a waiver if an 

environmental review determines the action as proposed or 

conditioned would only impact non-contributing trail 

segments. 

- Modification: This stipulation may not be modified. 

	 Seasonal Restriction Stipulation for Big Game Winter Range 

(496,000 acres in Alternative IV-A; 509,000 acres in Alternative 

IV-B, the Preferred Alternative), Key Sage-Grouse Habitat 

(234,000 acres in Alternative IV-A; 248,000 acres in Alternative 

IV-B, the Preferred Alternative), and Redband Trout Spawning 

Habitat (6,000 acres in Alternative IV-A; 7,000 acres in 

Alternative IV-B, the Preferred Alternative) – No surface use 

would be allowed (e.g., exploration, construction, and drilling) 

within big game winter range from December through March, key 

sage-grouse habitat from mid February through mid June, or 

RCAs in redband trout spawning habitat from May through June. 

- Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if 

an environmental review determines the action as proposed 

or conditioned would not affect the species or habitat during 

the critical season. An exception may also be granted if the 

proponent, BLM, and state wildlife agencies negotiate 

compensation or mitigation that would offset the anticipated 

impact to the species or habitat. 

- Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if after discussions 

with state wildlife agencies it is determined the described 

lands are incapable of serving the long-term requirements of 

the species and these areas no longer warrant consideration 

of habitat. 

- Modification: The authorized officer may modify the size and 

shape of the area under seasonal restrictions if an 

environmental analysis indicates the actual habitat suitability 

for the species is different. Time periods may be modified 

based on studies documental local periods of actual use. 

	 Seasonal Restriction Stipulation for Bull Trout Spawning Habitat 

(700 acres) – No surface use would be allowed (e.g., 

exploration, construction, and drilling) within RCAs in bull trout 

spawning habitat from August through November. 

- Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if 

an environmental review determines the action as proposed 

2-195 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Leasable Minerals 

	 

	 

or conditioned would not affect the species or habitat during 

the critical season. An exception may also be granted if the 

proponent, BLM, FWS, and state wildlife agencies negotiate 

compensation or mitigation that would offset the anticipated 

impact to the species or habitat. 

- Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if after consulting 

with FWS and discussions with state wildlife agencies it is 

determined the described lands are incapable of serving the 

long-term requirements of the species and these areas no 

longer warrant consideration of habitat. 

 Modification: The authorized officer may modify the size and 

shape of the area under seasonal restrictions if an environmental 

analysis indicates the actual habitat suitability for the species is 

different. Time periods may be modified based on studies 

documenting local periods of actual use. Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation for Riparian Areas and Wetlands (52,000 acres in 

Alternative IV-A; 53,000 acres in Alternative IV-B, the Preferred 

Alternative) – Surface use within RCAs must be consistent with 

the guidelines in the ARMS (Appendix D). Exceptions, waivers, 

and modifications may not be made. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

LE-V-O- 1. Facilitate 

reasonable, economical, and 

environmentally sound 

exploration and development of 

leasable minerals where 

compatible with resource 

objectives. 

Allocations 

LE-V-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be open to 

mineral leasing, subject to laws, regulations, and formal orders; the 

terms and conditions of the standard lease form; and stipulations for 

ESA Section 7 Consultation and Cultural Resource Protection. Areas 

that would be subject to additional moderate or major constraints 

specific to Alternative V are as follows: 

 Moderate constraints: Key sage-grouse habitat (mid February 

through mid June), and RCAs in bull trout (August through 

November) and redband trout (May through June) spawning 

habitat would be open to mineral leasing with seasonal 

restrictions (Appendix H). RCAs would be open to mineral 

leasing, consistent with guidelines in the ARMS (Appendix D). 

	 Major constraints: The Oregon NHT protective corridor and the 

Kelton and Toana Freight Road protective corridors would be 

open to mineral leasing with NSO. 

LE-V-A- 2. Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs; the Lower 

Bruneau Canyon, Middle Snake, and Sand Point ACECs; and nonWSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics would be 

closed to mineral leasing. 

See Map 96 for locations of leasable mineral allocations. 

LE-V-A- 3. Areas open or closed to exploration and development of 

non-energy leasable minerals would follow allocations outlined 

above. 

August 2010	 2-196 
 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Leasable Minerals 

Management Actions 

LE-V-MA- 1. Exceptions, waivers, or modifications may be made for 

lease stipulations as described below. Public review is required for 

exceptions, waivers, or modifications to stipulations that involve an 

issue of major concern to the public; documentation requirements 

would follow those outlined in 43 CFR 3101.1-4. 

	 NSO Stipulation for Oregon NHT Protective Corridor (13,000 

acres) – Surface occupancy is not allowed within the Oregon 

NHT protective corridor. 

- Exception: After coordination with SHPO, the authorized 

officer may grant an exception if an environmental review 

determines the action as proposed or conditioned would not 

impair the integrity of the trail. 

- Waiver: The authorized officer may grant a waiver if an 

environmental review determines the action as proposed or 

conditioned would only impact non-contributing trail 

segments. 

- Modification: This stipulation may not be modified. 

	 NSO Stipulation for Toana and Kelton Roads (20,000 acres) – 

Surface occupancy would not be allowed within the Kelton and 

Toana Freight Road corridors. 

- Exception: After coordination with SHPO, the authorized 

officer may grant an exception if an environmental review 

determines the action as proposed or conditioned would not 

impair the integrity of the trails. 

- Waiver: The authorized officer may grant a waiver if an 

environmental review determines the action as proposed or 

conditioned would only impact non-contributing trail 

segments. 

- Modification: This stipulation may not be modified. 

	 Seasonal Restriction Stipulation for Key Sage-Grouse Habitat 

(255,000 acres) and Redband Trout Spawning Habitat (7,000 

acres) – No surface use is allowed (e.g., exploration, 

construction, and drilling) within key sage-grouse habitat from 

mid February through mid June, or RCAs in redband trout 

spawning habitat from May through June. 

- Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if 

an environmental review determines the action as proposed 

or conditioned would not affect the species or habitat during 

the critical season. An exception may also be granted if the 

proponent, BLM, FWS, and state wildlife agencies negotiate 

compensation or mitigation that would offset the anticipated 

impact to the species or habitat. 

- Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if after discussions 

with state wildlife agencies it is determined the described 

lands are incapable of serving the long-term requirements of 

the species and these areas no longer warrant consideration 

of habitat. 

- Modification: The authorized officer may modify the size and 

shape of the area under seasonal restrictions if an 

environmental analysis indicates the actual habitat suitability 

for the species is different. Time periods may be modified 

based on studies documenting local periods of actual use. 

	 Seasonal Restriction Stipulation for Bull Trout Spawning Habitat 

(900 acres) – No surface use would be allowed (e.g., 

2-197 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Salable Minerals 

	 

	 

exploration, construction, and drilling) within RCAs in bull trout 

spawning habitat from August through November. 

- Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if 

an environmental review determines the action as proposed 

or conditioned would not affect the species or habitat during 

the critical season. An exception may also be granted if the 

proponent, BLM, FWS, and state wildlife agencies negotiate 

compensation or mitigation that would offset the anticipated 

impact to the species or habitat. 

- Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if after consulting 

with FWS and state wildlife agencies it is determined the 

described lands are incapable of serving the long-term 

requirements of the species and these areas no longer 

warrant consideration of habitat. 

- Modification: The authorized officer may modify the size and 

shape of the area under seasonal restrictions if an 

environmental analysis indicates the actual habitat suitability 

for the species is different. Time periods may be modified 

based on studies documenting local periods of actual use. 

 Controlled Surface Use Stipulation for Riparian Areas and 

Wetlands (53,000 acres) – Surface use within RCAs must be 

consistent with the guidelines in the ARMS (Appendix D). 

Exceptions, waivers, and modifications may not be made. 

2.4.6.2. Salable Minerals 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

SA-NA-O- 1. Manage 697 acres 

in MUAs 4, 6, 7, and 12 for 

material use sites.	 

Allocations 

SA-NA-A- 1. Manage areas for material use sites as follows: 

 65 acres in MUA 4 

 28 acres in MUA 6 

 24 sites containing 524 acres in MUA 7 

 80 acres in MUA 12 

Management Actions 

SA-NA-MA- 1. New sites may be set up if it is determined that an 

existing site will not meet the applicant’s needs and site impacts can 

be sufficiently mitigated. 

Management Common to the No Action and All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

See goals in Management Specific to the No Action Alternative and Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Allocations 

See allocations for specific alternatives. 

August 2010	 2-198 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Salable Minerals 

Management Actions 

SA-C-MA- 1. The general policy shall be to promote the use of 

existing sites for mineral disposals. 

SA-C-MA- 2. Exploration for new sites would be the responsibility of 

the applicant. Exploration would be allowed where appropriate under 

a letter of authorization from the authorized officer. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

SA-CA-G- 1. Provide salable mineral development opportunities where they are compatible with other 

resources. 

Objective 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Allocations 

See allocations for specific alternatives. 

Management Actions 

SA-CA-MA- 1. If activities related to salable mineral development 

cannot avoid special status species or their habitats, permits would 

include mitigation for any adverse effects on special status species 

and their habitats. 

SA-CA-MA- 2. RCAs would be open to salable mineral development 

consistent with the guidelines in the ARMS (Appendix D). 

SA-CA-MA- 3. All mineral material sites would be reclaimed in 

accordance with resource objectives for the adjacent area as 

specified in the permit. 

SA-CA-MA- 4. Terms and Conditions for commercial salable mineral 

development include but may not be limited to: 

 Crushing and blasting may be restricted during important time 

periods for Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, or Candidate 

species (Type 1 BLM Sensitive; Appendix H). 

	 No ground disturbance on sites with important cultural and 

paleontological resources. 

	 Any operation with ground disturbance would be responsible for 

control of noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

	 Topsoil would be stockpiled separate from overburden to 

facilitate reclamation. 

	 Disturbed areas would be recontoured to as near a natural 

landform as possible or to a slope no greater than 3:1. 

	 Seeding, mulching, and drainage may be required in accordance 

with site-specific requirements. 

	 A reclamation bond may be required before any authorized 

ground disturbance; the reclamation bond would be revisited 

every 2 years. 

 Incremental interim reclamation would be required. 

 Containment for hazardous materials would be required. 

 Dust abatement would be required adjacent to private 

residences. 

2-199 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Salable Minerals 

	 During construction and use, runoff water should be diverted 

onto areas with vegetation capable of filtering runoff, or pass 

through settling basins. 

SA-CA-MA- 5. Stipulations for community pits would be developed 

on a site-specific basis. Stipulations could include the following: 

 Topsoil should be stock piled and placed back onto the pit upon 

completion of excavation. 

	 The pit area shall be fenced or the work slopes shall be leveled 

to a 2-to-1 slope at the end of each day. 

	 The permitee is responsible for all suppression costs resulting 

from any fires caused by the proposed action. 

	 When American antiquities or other objects of historic or 

scientific interest including, but not limited to, historic or 

prehistoric ruins, vertebrate fossils, or artifacts are discovered, 

the item(s) will be left intact and immediately brought to the 

attention of the authorized officer. 

	 The area shall be maintained free of trash and refuse during 

operations and at termination of the permit. 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

SA-I-O- 1. Provide salable 

minerals needed for community 

and economic purposes and 

facilitate their reasonable, 

economical, and 

environmentally sound 

development where available 

and compatible with resource 

objectives. 

Allocations 

SA-I-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be open to 

salable mineral development (1,308,000 acres), subject to sitespecific NEPA analysis, stipulations, and 43 CFR 3600 regulations, 

except for the following areas which are closed to salable mineral 

development (187,000 acres):
 

 WSAs; 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs; 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor; 

 The Kelton and Toana Freight Roads; 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge, Lower Bruneau Canyon, Salmon Falls Creek, 

and Sand Point ACECs; 

 Playas (300-feet buffer); and 

 Non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics. 

See Map 97 for locations of salable mineral allocations. 

Management Actions 

SA-I-MA- 1. New salable mineral development or expansion of 

existing developments would not be allowed within the Middle Snake 

ACEC. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

August 2010	 2-200 
 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Salable Minerals 

Objective 

SA-II-O- 1. Provide salable 

minerals needed for community 

and economic purposes and 

facilitate their reasonable, 

economical, and 

environmentally sound 

development where available 

and compatible with resource 

objectives. 

Allocations 

SA-II-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be open to 

salable mineral development (1,401,000 acres), subject to sitespecific NEPA analysis, stipulations, and 43 CFR 3600 regulations, 

except for the following areas which are closed to salable mineral 

development (94,000 acres): 

 WSAs.
 

See Map 98 for locations of salable mineral allocations.
 

Management Actions 

SA-II-MA- 1. New sites may be set up if it is determined that an 

existing site will not meet the applicant’s needs and site impacts can 

be sufficiently mitigated. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

SA-III-O- 1. Provide salable 

minerals needed for community 

and economic purposes and 

facilitate their reasonable, 

economical, and 

environmentally sound 

development where available 

and compatible with resource 

and wildland fire prevention and 

suppression objectives. 

Allocations 

SA-III-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be open to 

salable mineral development (1,351,000 acres), subject to sitespecific NEPA analysis, stipulations, and 43 CFR 3600 regulations, 

except for the following areas which are closed to salable mineral 

development (144,000 acres):
 
 

 WSAs; 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs; 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor; 

 The Kelton and Toana Freight Roads; 

 Sand Point, Bruneau-Jarbidge, and Salmon Falls Creek ACECs; 

and 

 Playas (300-ft buffer) 

See Map 99 for locations of salable mineral allocations. 

Management Actions 

SA-III-MA- 1. New sites may be set up if it is determined that an 

existing site will not meet the applicant’s needs and site impacts can 

be sufficiently mitigated. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

2-201 August 2010 

 


 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Salable Minerals 

Objective 

SA-IV-O- 1. Provide salable 

minerals needed for community 

and economic purposes and 

facilitate their reasonable, 

economical, and 

environmentally sound 

development where available 

and compatible with resource 

objectives. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Allocations 

SA-IV-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be open to 

salable mineral development (1,220,000 acres in Alternative IV-A; 

1,252,000 acres in Alternative IV-B, the Preferred Alternative), 

subject to site-specific NEPA analysis, stipulations, and 43 CFR 

3600 regulations, except for the following areas which are closed to 

salable mineral development (275,000 acres in Alternative IV-A; 

243,000 acres in Alternative IV-B, the Preferred Alternative): 

 WSAs; 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs; 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor; 

 The Kelton and Toana Freight Roads; 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge, Inside Desert, Lower Bruneau Canyon, and 

Sand Point ACECs; 

 Playas (300-feet buffer); and 

 Non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics. 

See Map 100 for locations of salable mineral allocations. 

Management Actions 

SA-IV-MA- 1. New sites may be set up if it is determined that an 

existing site will not meet the applicant’s needs and site impacts can 

be sufficiently mitigated. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

SA-V-O- 1. Provide salable 

minerals needed for community 

and economic purposes and 

facilitate their reasonable, 

economical, and 

environmentally sound 

development where available 

and compatible with resource 

objectives. 

Allocations 

SA-V-A- 1. The majority of the planning area would be open to 

salable mineral development (1,297,000 acres), subject to sitespecific NEPA analysis, stipulations, and 43 CFR 3600 regulations, 

except for the following areas which are closed to salable mineral 

development (198,000 acres):
 

 WSAs; 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs; 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor; 

 The Kelton and Toana Freight Roads, 

 Lower Bruneau Canyon, Middle Snake, and Sand Point ACECs; 

 Playas (300-feet buffer); and 

 Non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics.
 

See Map 101 for locations of salable mineral allocations.
 

Management Actions 

SA-V-MA- 1. New sites may be set up if it is determined that an 

existing site will not meet the applicant’s needs and site impacts can 

be sufficiently mitigated. 

August 2010 2-202 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Locatable Minerals


 


 

2.4.6.3. Locatable Minerals 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

LO-NA-O- 1. Make 1,395,000 

acres of the area available for 

locatable minerals across all 

MUAs. 

Allocations 

LO-NA-A- 1. Generally, the public lands would be available for 

mineral exploration and development, subject to applicable 

regulations and Federal and State laws. Areas within the planning
 

area would be available for exploration and development of locatable 

minerals except where specifically restricted or excluded. The public 

lands would be available for location of mining claims unless 

withdrawn. 

LO-NA-A- 2. Recommend more than 217,943 acres for withdrawal
 

from locatable entry in MUAs 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16. 

Areas include: 

 Sand Point and Bruneau-Jarbidge ACECs; 

 Oregon Trail; 

 Paleontological sites and cultural resource complexes; 

 Dove Springs; 

 Deans Site; 

 Designated wilderness; 

 Bruneau, Jarbidge, and Salmon Falls Canyons; and 

 Bighorn sheep habitat. 

Recommendations by BLM for withdrawal are subject to final 

consideration by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Management Action 

LO-NA-MA- 1. Give special consideration for the mitigation of 

mining-related activities in riparian areas (i.e., tailing deposits, 

holding ponds, chemical dumps). 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

LO-CA-G- 1. Locatable mineral development would not cause unnecessary and undue degradation of 

resources. 

Objective 

LO-CA-O- 1. Facilitate 

reasonable, economical, and 

environmentally sound 

exploration and development of 

locatable minerals. 

Allocations 

See allocations specific to each alternative. 

Management Actions 

LO-CA-MA- 1. Determine whether locatable mineral plans of 

operation cause unnecessary and undue degradation to resources, 

including habitat for sage-grouse and other special status species, 

on a case-by-case basis and identify stipulations or mitigation 

measures as appropriate. 

2-203 August 2010 
 


 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Locatable Minerals 

LO-CA-MA- 2. Activities related to locatable mineral development 

negatively affecting riparian areas would be mitigated according to 

direction in the ARMS (Appendix D). 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

LO-I-A- 1. The planning area would be available for location of 

mining claims unless withdrawn. 

LO-I-A- 2. Recommend the following areas for withdrawal from 

mining laws for locatable exploration and development (117,000 

acres): 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge, Middle Snake, Salmon Falls Creek, and Sand 

Point ACECs; 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor; and 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs. 

See Map 102 for locations of areas recommended for withdrawal. 

Recommendations by BLM for withdrawal are subject to final 

consideration by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Management Actions 

See management action in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

LO-II-A- 1. The planning area would be available for location of 

mining claims unless withdrawn.
 

LO-II-A- 2. Recommend the following areas for withdrawal from
 

mining laws for locatable exploration and development (46,000 

acres): 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor and 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs. 

See Map 103 for locations of areas recommended for withdrawal. 

Recommendations by BLM for withdrawal are subject to final 

consideration by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Management Actions 

See management action in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

August 2010 2-204 
 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Locatable Minerals 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

LO-III-A- 1. The planning area would be available for location of 

mining claims unless withdrawn.
 

LO-III-A- 2. Recommend the following areas for withdrawal from
 

mining laws for locatable exploration and development (92,000 

acres): 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge, Salmon Falls Creek, and Sand Point ACECs; 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor; and 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs. 

See Map 104 for locations of areas recommended for withdrawal. 

Recommendations by BLM for withdrawal are subject to final 

consideration by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Management Actions 

See management action in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

LO-IV-A- 1. The planning area would be available for location of 

mining claims unless withdrawn.
 

LO-IV-A- 2. Recommend the following areas for withdrawal from 

mining laws for locatable exploration and development (148,000 

acres): 

 Bruneau-Jarbidge and Sand Point ACECs; 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor; and 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs. 

See Map 105 for locations of areas recommended for withdrawal. 

Recommendations by BLM for withdrawal are subject to final 

consideration by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Management Actions 

See management action in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

2-205 August 2010 

 


 

Chapter 2: Resource Uses 

Locatable Minerals 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Allocations 

LO-V-A- 1. The planning area would be available for location of 

mining claims unless withdrawn.
 

LO-V-A- 2. Recommend the following areas for withdrawal from
 

mining laws for locatable exploration and development (53,000 

acres): 

 Middle Snake and Sand Point ACECs; 

 The Oregon NHT protective corridor; and 

 Eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs. 

See Map 106 for locations of areas recommended for withdrawal. 

Recommendations by BLM for withdrawal are subject to final 

consideration by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Management Actions 

See management action in Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

August 2010 2-206 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

2.5. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

This section describes management specific to areas with special designations. Unless otherwise 

specified in the following sections, management described elsewhere in Chapter 2 applies to these areas 

as well. 

2.5.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

ACEC-NA-O- 1. Protect the 

cultural values of the Dry 

Lake/Bruneau River Complex 

and Arch Canyon and the 

scenic and recreation values of 

the Bruneau and Jarbidge 

Rivers through special 

designation and management. 

ACEC-NA-O- 2. Protect and 

enhance the Arch Canyon area 

and bighorn sheep habitat in the 

West Fork of the Bruneau River 

and the Jarbidge River system 

to a good ecological condition 

class and protect and maintain 

the cultural, geologic, scenic, 

and natural values present in 

the area. 

Allocation 

Bruneau Jarbidge ACEC

ACEC-NA-A- 1. Manage 85,000 acres of public land as the 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC (Map 107). 

Management Actions 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

ACEC-NA-MA- 1. The management priority for the canyons is for 

bighorn sheep and other wildlife. Where necessary to prevent 

livestock access to canyons, livestock management measures (i.e., 

salting or fencing) will be implemented. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 2. Activities or developments that would impair the 

scenic quality would not be allowed. The area would be managed as 

VRM Class I or II with the canyon system as the Key Observation 

Point. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 3. Livestock water sources would not be developed 

within 1 mile of bighorn sheep habitat within the ACEC unless 

adverse effects can be mitigated. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 4. No conversions from cattle to sheep will be 

allowed in allotments containing bighorn sheep habitat, unless a 

satisfactory separation can be maintained by fences or topographic 

features. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 5. The area would be recommended for withdrawal 

from the 1872 mining laws. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 6. No surface occupancy would be allowed for oil 

and gas and geothermal exploration or development within the 

habitat area. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 7. Retain public lands within bighorn sheep habitat 

within the ACEC, unless a proposed exchange would result in the 

acquisition of higher quality habitat. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 8. The ACEC would be a utility avoidance area for 

overhead, surface, and underground developments. Retain the utility 

corridor near Murphy Hot Springs in the ACEC. 

2-207 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

ACEC-NA-MA- 9. Maintain a low level of human disturbance in 

bighorn sheep habitat by not constructing or upgrading any roads 

that would lead to or encourage human disturbance in bighorn sheep 

habitat. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 10. Motorized vehicle use within the ACEC would be 

allowed only on designated roads and trails. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 11. The protection of Endangered, Threatened, and 

Sensitive plant species would be given priority over livestock and 

recreation use. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 12. Existing primitive recreation uses of the river 

canyon complex are compatible uses. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 13. OHV use, livestock use, utility corridor use, 

mineral development, and hydro development are uses that need to 

be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine compatibility. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 14. Permit no adverse habitat alteration of bighorn 

sheep or potential bighorn sheep habitats. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 15. Develop a Multiple Use Management Plan for the 

ACEC. 

Objective 

Salmon Falls Creek ACEC 

ACEC-NA-O- 3. Protect the 

Salmon Falls Creek Canyon 

(rim-to-rim) for its natural and 

scenic values through special 

designation and management. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Allocations 

Salmon Falls Creek ACEC 

ACEC-NA-A- 2. Manage 2,700 acres of public land as the Salmon 

Falls Creek ACEC (Map 107). 

Management Actions 

Salmon Falls Creek ACEC 

ACEC-NA-MA- 16. No surface occupancy would be allowed for 

leasable minerals within the Salmon Falls Creek ACEC. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 17. The ACEC would be closed to salable minerals. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 18. Manage the ACEC as VRM Class II. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 19. The ACEC would be a ROW avoidance area 

(overhead, surface, and underground). 

ACEC-NA-MA- 20. Close the ACEC to agricultural entry. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 21. Close the ACEC to all motorized vehicles. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 22. The ACEC would be closed to livestock grazing. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 23. Restrict any mechanized fire suppression 

equipment from the canyon within the Salmon Falls Creek ACEC. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 24. Develop a Recreation Activity Management Plan 

for the ACEC. 

August 2010 2-208 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Objective 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-NA-O- 4. Protect and 

manage the Sand Point 

Paleontologic Area. Protect its 

paleontological and cultural 

resources from destruction and 

loss, protect the geologic 

features present, and ensure 

that its scenic and wildlife 

values are maintained. 

Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

Allocations 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-NA-A- 3. Manage 810 acres of public land as the Sand Point 

ACEC (Map 107). 

Management Actions 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-NA-MA- 25. Manage the paleontological resources within the 

ACEC in accordance with the 1988 Sand Point Natural History 

Management Plan. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 26. Prevent agricultural trespass, including irrigation 

lines. Prevent water erosion on the site and ensure that vegetative 

cover is maintained to minimize wind erosion. Prevent sediment 

discharge from entering the Snake River. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 27. Mitigate erosion from irrigated agricultural lands 

onto adjacent public lands that could erode Sand Point 

paleontological deposits. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 28. No surface-disturbing activities on the site would 

be allowed unless they are directly related to studies or research on 

the cultural, paleontological, or geological resources present or, 

unless they can be mitigated in such a way as to maximize the 

information gained on the cultural, paleontological and/or geological 

resource impacted in the Sand Point ACEC. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 29. Any surface disturbance allowed in the Sand 

Point ACEC would be mitigated to blend with the topography and 

visual aspects of the site so as to be substantially unnoticeable. If 

this is not economically or practically feasible, the surface 

disturbance would not be allowed. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 30. Recommend lands within the ACEC for 

withdrawal from locatable mineral location exploration and 

development and all types of land disposals. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 31. The ACEC would be open to mineral leasing with 

NSO. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 32. The ACEC would be a utility avoidance area for 

surface and underground development. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 33. Obtain an easement, through the private lands 

that the access road traverses, to ensure access to the Sand Point 

ACEC. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 34. Motorized vehicle use within the Sand Point 

ACEC would be limited to designated routes. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 35. No new buildings would be allowed unless the 

structure is directly related to the preservation or interpretation of the 

site. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 36. Any development on the tableland above the rim 

that would cause erosion on the site would be incompatible with the 

2-209 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ACECs 

purposes of this ACEC. The lands involved with this ACEC and 

already declared as suitable for CA development will be considered 

as unsuitable and lands involved would be retained in public 

ownership. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 37. Existing uses of the site for hunting and fishing 

are compatible uses. The use of the site for paleontological materials 

collection by professionals is also compatible. 

ACEC-NA-MA- 38. Motorized vehicle use off existing roads is 

incompatible. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

ACEC-CA-G- 1. ACECs will be managed to protect the important biological, cultural, scenic, and historic 

resources that meet the criteria for relevance and importance. 

Objectives 

See objectives for specific 

alternatives. 

Allocations 

See allocations specific to each alternative. 

Management Actions 

See management actions specific to each alternative. 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

ACEC-I-O- 1. Manage the lands 

within the Bruneau-Jarbidge 

ACEC to protect their fish, 

wildlife, botanical, scenic, and 

cultural resource values. 

Allocation 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

ACEC-I-A- 1. Manage 85,000 acres of public land as the BruneauJarbidge ACEC (Map 108). 

Management Actions 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

ACEC-I-MA- 1. All actions within the portions of the ACEC that are 

also within WSAs must be consistent with the IMP and with 

allocations and management actions made for WSAs. 

ACEC-I-MA- 2. Areas within the ACEC with concentrated 

recreational and livestock grazing use would be a high priority for 

noxious weeds and invasive plants treatment with integrated weed 

management techniques for control, containment, and where 

practical, eradication. Use of domestic sheep or goats to reduce 

noxious weeds would not be allowed within the ACEC to eliminate 

potential contact with bighorn sheep. 

ACEC-I-MA- 3. The ACEC would be a Critical Suppression Area. 

ACEC-I-MA- 4. MIST would be used to suppress wildland fires within 

the ACEC. Fire lines would be rehabilitated to help stabilize soils. 

August 2010 2-210 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

ACEC-I-MA- 5. Manage the portion of the Jarbidge ROW corridor 

within the ACEC as VRM Class III; manage the remainder of the 

ACEC as VRM Class I. 

ACEC-I-MA- 6. Adjust livestock grazing so livestock seasons of use 

would not overlap bighorn sheep breeding and winter periods in 

those pastures that contain bighorn sheep habitat (Appendix H). 

ACEC-I-MA- 7. Placing salt or other supplements would be 

prohibited within the ACEC to reduce livestock use of bighorn sheep 

habitat. 

ACEC-I-MA- 8. Monitor recreational use within the ACEC. If this use 

reaches levels that impair the relevant and important values of the 

ACEC, implement protective measures appropriate to the type of 

recreational activity. Protective measures may include, but not be 

limited to, implementing a permit system for the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers in coordination with the Bruneau FO, requiring the 

use of certified weed-free forage and straw, and designating 

camping areas outside the ACEC. 

ACEC-I-MA- 9. Consider SRPs within the ACEC on a case-by-case 

basis with mitigation for negative impacts to relevant and important 

values. 

ACEC-I-MA- 10. Motorized vehicle use within the ACEC would be 

limited to designated routes. To avoid disturbing bighorn sheep 

during wintering and lambing periods or to protect other relevant and 

important values, seasonal closures of specific designated routes 

may be considered during the CTTMP. 

ACEC-I-MA- 11. Continue to maintain the low level of human 

disturbance in bighorn sheep habitat by not constructing new roads 

or substantially improving other routes in the ACEC. Some 

designated routes within the ACEC, including the road to Indian Hot 

Springs, could have spot surface treatments to reduce resource 

damage due to road braiding and to improve public safety. 

ACEC-I-MA- 12. The ACEC would be a ROW avoidance area; new 

ROWs would be restricted to ROW corridors and locations of existing 

ROWs. 

ACEC-I-MA- 13. Lands within the ACEC would be in Land Tenure 

Zone 1; where practical, acquire private and/or State inholdings. The 

ACEC designation and management would apply to lands acquired 

within the ACEC boundary. 

ACEC-I-MA- 14. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-I-MA- 15. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral 

development. 

ACEC-I-MA- 16. Recommend lands within the ACEC for withdrawal 

from mining laws for locatable exploration and development. 

2-211 August 2010 
 

 

Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

Objective 

Lower Bruneau Canyon 

ACEC 

ACEC-I-O- 2. Manage the lands 

within the Lower Bruneau 

Canyon ACEC to protect their 

aquatic and botanical resources. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Allocation 

Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC

ACEC-I-A- 2. Manage 1,100 acres of public lands as the Lower 

Bruneau Canyon ACEC (Map 108). 

Management Actions 

Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC

ACEC-I-MA- 17. All actions within the ACEC must be consistent with 

the IMP and with allocations and management actions made for 

WSAs, unless the WSA is released by Congress. 

ACEC-I-MA- 18. Restore native upland and riparian plant 

communities within the ACEC to improve habitat for special status 

species. 

ACEC-I-MA- 19. The ACEC would be a high priority for noxious 

weeds and invasive plants treatment with integrated weed 

management techniques for control, containment, and where 

practical, eradication. 

ACEC-I-MA- 20. The ACEC would be a Critical Suppression Area. 

ACEC-I-MA- 21. The ACEC’s VRM Class would follow WSA 

guidelines. In the event the WSA is released, manage the ACEC as 

VRM Class III. 

ACEC-I-MA- 22. The ACEC would be available for livestock grazing 

and new infrastructure as long as they are compatible with recovery 

of the area, including protecting seed production of special status 

plants and reducing impacts to their pollinators. 

ACEC-I-MA- 23. Lands within the ACEC would be in Land Tenure 

Zone 1. 

ACEC-I-MA- 24. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-I-MA- 25. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral 

development. 

Objective 

Middle Snake ACEC 

ACEC-I-O- 3. Manage the lands 

within the Middle Snake ACEC 

to protect their fish and 

botanical values. 

Allocation 

Middle Snake ACEC 

ACEC-I-A- 3. Manage 7,500 acres of public lands as the Middle 

Snake ACEC (Map 108). 

Management Actions 

Middle Snake ACEC 

ACEC-I-MA- 26. Restore habitat for special status plants within the 

ACEC. Maintain existing high-quality special status plant habitat. 

ACEC-I-MA- 27. Where habitat is suitable, transplant or seed special 

status plants within the ACEC. 

ACEC-I-MA- 28. The ACEC would be a high priority for noxious 

weeds and invasive plants treatment with integrated weed 

August 2010 2-212 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

2-213 August 2010 

management techniques for control, containment, and where 

practical eradication. Special conditions would apply in habitat 

occupied by special status plant species. 

ACEC-I-MA- 29. The ACEC would be a Critical Suppression Area. 

ACEC-I-MA- 30. Mitigate the effects of surface-disturbing activities in 

the ACEC, such as recreation and transportation. 

ACEC-I-MA- 31. Implement use restrictions within the ACEC in 

areas with slopes greater than 20%, or in areas where soils are rated 

severe or very severe for wind erosion or high for water erosion. 

ACEC-I-MA- 32. Manage the ACEC as VRM Class III. 

ACEC-I-MA- 33. The Asquena pasture within the ACEC would be 

available for livestock grazing; the remainder of the ACEC would not 

be available for livestock grazing. 

ACEC-I-MA- 34. Livestock trailing through the ACEC would be 

allowed in the designated trailing corridor, but livestock would not be 

allowed to remain in the ACEC overnight. 

ACEC-I-MA- 35. Monitor recreational use within the ACEC. If this 

use reaches levels that impair the relevant and important values of 

the ACEC, implement protective measures appropriate to the type of 

recreational activity. Protective measures may include, but not be 

limited to, improving access routes to recreational sites along the 

Snake River, installing barriers to protect relevant and important 

values, and implementing measures to address water quality and 

public health concerns. 

ACEC-I-MA- 36. BLM-managed lands within the ACEC can be 

exchanged for non-BLM-managed lands, consistent with the Land 

Tenure section, in order to obtain lands with relevant and important 

values or to improve management. Where practical, acquire private 

and/or State inholdings. The ACEC designation and management 

would apply to lands acquired within the ACEC boundary. 

ACEC-I-MA- 37. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-I-MA- 38. The ACEC would be closed to new salable mineral 

development and expansion of existing developments. 

ACEC-I-MA- 39. Recommend lands within the ACEC for withdrawal 

from mining laws for locatable exploration and development. 

Objective 

Salmon Falls Creek ACEC 

ACEC-I-O- 4. Manage the lands 

within the Salmon Falls Creek 

ACEC to protect their scenic, 

fish, and botanical values. 

Allocation 

Salmon Falls Creek ACEC 

ACEC-I-A- 4. Manage 2,700 acres of public land as the Salmon Falls 

Creek ACEC (Map 108). 
 

Chapter 2: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ACECs 

Management Actions 

Salmon Falls Creek ACEC 

ACEC-I-MA- 40. All actions within the portion of the ACEC that is 

also a WSA must be consistent with the IMP and with allocations and 

management actions made for WSAs. 

ACEC-I-MA- 41. Restore vegetation within the riparian area to 

benefit redband trout habitat (e.g., increasing shade in the riparian 

zone). 

ACEC-I-MA- 42. Use native species for any vegetation treatments 

within the ACEC, including for ES&BAR. 

ACEC-I-MA- 43. The ACEC would be a high priority for noxious 

weeds and invasive plants treatment with integrated weed 

management techniques for control, containment, and where 

practical eradication. 

ACEC-I-MA- 44. The ACEC would be a Critical Suppression Area. 

ACEC-I-MA- 45. MIST would be used to suppress wildland fires 

within the ACEC. 

ACEC-I-MA- 46. Manage the portion of the Jarbidge ROW corridor 

within the ACEC as VRM Class III; manage the remainder of the 

ACEC as VRM Class I. 

ACEC-I-MA- 47. The ACEC would remain closed to livestock 

grazing. 

ACEC-I-MA- 48. Monitor recreational use within the ACEC. If this 

use reaches levels that impair the relevant and important values of 

the ACEC, implement protective measures appropriate to the type of 

recreational activity. 

ACEC-I-MA- 49. The ACEC north and south of Lily Grade crossing 

would remain closed to motorized vehicle use. 

ACEC-I-MA- 50. The ACEC would remain a ROW avoidance area; 

new ROWs would be restricted to the Jarbidge ROW corridor and 

locations of existing ROWs. 

ACEC-I-MA- 51. Lands within the ACEC would be in Land Tenure 

Zone 1. 

ACEC-I-MA- 52. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-I-MA- 53. The ACEC would remain closed to salable mineral 

development. 

ACEC-I-MA- 54. Recommend lands within the ACEC for withdrawal 

from mining laws for locatable exploration and development. 

August 2010 2-214 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Objective 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-I-O- 5. Manage the lands 

within the Sand Point ACEC to 

protect their historic, cultural, 

paleontological, and geologic 

values. 

Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

Allocation 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-I-A- 5. Manage 950 acres of public land as the Sand Point 

ACEC (Map 108). 

Management Actions 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-I-MA- 55. Manage paleontological resources within the ACEC 

in accordance with the 1988 Sand Point Natural History 

Management Plan. Modify the 1988 plan to encompass the Morgan 

property extension and to be in conformance with the revised RMP. 

ACEC-I-MA- 56. The ACEC would be closed to fossil collecting 

except under permit for scientific research. 

ACEC-I-MA- 57. Limit BLM management activities and authorized 

and allowed uses that may contribute to wind or water erosion in the 

ACEC. 

ACEC-I-MA- 58. Work cooperatively with adjacent land owners to 

reduce or eliminate run-off from the agricultural fields that erode soils 

within the ACEC. 

ACEC-I-MA- 59. No surface-disturbing activities would be allowed in 

the ACEC unless they are directly related to research on the ACEC’s 

cultural, paleontological, or geological resources or they can be 

mitigated. 

ACEC-I-MA- 60. MIST would be used to suppress wildland fires 

within the ACEC to protect the paleontological resources. The 

authorized officer may allow the use of bull dozers to construct 

control lines within the ACEC on a case-by-case basis. However, 

dozer lines would be rehabilitated to minimize erosion. 

ACEC-I-MA- 61. Manage the ACEC as VRM Class III, except within 

the Oregon NHT protective corridor, which would be managed as 

VRM Class II. 

ACEC-I-MA- 62. The ACEC would be available for livestock grazing. 

ACEC-I-MA- 63. New range infrastructure may be considered if it 

does not impair the relevant and important values of the ACEC. Any 

infrastructure would be located so that it does not increase or 

encourage livestock trailing across fossil-bearing areas, cultural 

resource sites, or Oregon NHT ruts. 

ACEC-I-MA- 64. Salt or other livestock supplements would not be 

placed within 0.25 miles of fossil-bearing areas or cultural resource 

sites. Locations off limits to salt or other livestock supplements would 

be made known to the livestock permittees. 

ACEC-I-MA- 65. Motorized vehicle use within the ACEC would be 

limited to designated routes. 

2-215 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ACECs 

ACEC-I-MA- 66. Consider upgrading the Wilson Grade Road if there 

is increased need for access for fire suppression activities or 

research. 

ACEC-I-MA- 67. Structures directly related to the preservation or 

interpretation of the site may be allowed (e.g., kiosks, protective 

barriers). 

ACEC-I-MA- 68. The ACEC would be a ROW exclusion area. 

ACEC-I-MA- 69. Lands within the ACEC would be in Land Tenure 

Zone 1. 

ACEC-I-MA- 70. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-I-MA- 71. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral 

development. 

ACEC-I-MA- 72. Recommend lands within the ACEC for withdrawal 

from mining laws for locatable exploration and development. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

No objective stated. 

Allocation 

ACEC-II-A- 1. No ACECs would be designated. 

Management Actions 

No management actions stated. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

ACEC-III-O- 1. Manage the 

lands within the BruneauJarbidge ACEC to protect their 

cultural, scenic, fish, wildlife, 

and botanical values. 

Allocation 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

ACEC-III-A- 1. Manage 57,000 acres of public land as the BruneauJarbidge ACEC (Map 109). 

Management Actions 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

ACEC-III-MA- 1. All actions within the portions of the ACEC that are 

also within WSAs must be consistent with the IMP and with 

allocations and management actions made for WSAs. 

ACEC-III-MA- 2. The ACEC would be a high priority for noxious 

weeds and invasive plants treatment with integrated weed 

management techniques for control, containment, and where 

practical, eradication. Use of domestic sheep or goats to reduce 

noxious weeds would not be allowed within the ACEC to eliminate 

potential contact with bighorn sheep. 

August 2010 2-216 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

ACEC-III-MA- 3. The ACEC would be a Critical Suppression Area. 

ACEC-III-MA- 4. Manage the ACEC as VRM Class I 

ACEC-III-MA- 5. Placing salt or other supplements within the ACEC 

would be prohibited to reduce livestock use of bighorn sheep habitat 

and protect winter range. 

ACEC-III-MA- 6. Monitor recreational use within the ACEC. If this 

use reaches levels that impair the relevant and important values of 

the ACEC, implement protective measures appropriate to the type of 

recreational activity. Protective measures may include, but not be 

limited to, implementing a permit system for the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers in coordination with the Bruneau FO, requiring the 

use of certified weed-free forage and straw, and designating 

camping areas outside the ACEC. 

ACEC-III-MA- 7. SRPs within the ACEC would be considered on a 

case-by-case basis with mitigation for negative impacts to relevant 

and important values. 

ACEC-III-MA- 8. Motorized vehicle use within the ACEC would be 

limited to designated routes. To avoid disturbing bighorn sheep 

during wintering and lambing periods or to protect other relevant and 

important values, seasonal closures of specific designated routes 

may be considered during the CTTMP. 

ACEC-III-MA- 9. Some designated routes within and adjoining the 

ACEC, including the road to Indian Hot Springs, could be improved 

to reduce resource damage due to road braiding, improve public 

safety, and facilitate visitor traffic. 

ACEC-III-MA- 10. The ACEC would be a ROW avoidance area; no 

overhead authorizations would be allowed. 

ACEC-III-MA- 11. Lands within the ACEC would be in Land Tenure 

Zone 1; where practical, acquire private inholdings. The ACEC 

designation and management would apply to lands acquired within 

the ACEC boundary. 

ACEC-III-MA- 12. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-III-MA- 13. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral 

development. 

ACEC-III-MA- 14. Recommend lands within the ACEC for withdrawal 

from mining laws for locatable exploration and development. 

Objective 

Salmon Falls Creek ACEC 

ACEC-III-O- 2. Manage the 

lands within the Salmon Falls 

Creek ACEC to protect their 

scenic, fish, and botanical 

values. 

Allocation 

Salmon Falls Creek ACEC 

ACEC-III-A- 2. Manage 2,700 acres of public land as the Salmon 

Falls Creek ACEC (Map 109). 

2-217 August 2010 
 

Chapter 2: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ACECs 

Management Actions 

Salmon Falls Creek ACEC 

ACEC-III-MA- 15. All actions within the portion of the ACEC that is 

also a WSA must be consistent with the IMP and with allocations and 

management actions made for WSAs. 

ACEC-III-MA- 16. Restore vegetation within the riparian area to 

benefit redband trout habitat (e.g., increasing shade in the riparian 

zone). 

ACEC-III-MA- 17. Use native species for any vegetation treatments 

within the ACEC, including for ES&BAR. 

ACEC-III-MA- 18. The ACEC would be a high priority for noxious 

weeds and invasive plants treatment with integrated weed 

management techniques for control, containment, and where 

practical eradication. 

ACEC-III-MA- 19. The ACEC would be a Critical Suppression Area. 

ACEC-III-MA- 20. MIST would be used to suppress wildland fires 

within the ACEC. 

ACEC-III-MA- 21. Manage the portion of the Jarbidge ROW corridor 

within the ACEC as VRM Class III; manage the remainder of the 

ACEC as VRM Class I. 

ACEC-III-MA- 22. The ACEC would remain closed to livestock 

grazing. 

ACEC-III-MA- 23. Monitor recreational use within the ACEC. If this 

use reaches levels that impair the relevant and important values of 

the ACEC, implement protective measures appropriate to the type of 

recreational activity. 

ACEC-III-MA- 24. The ACEC north and south of Lily Grade crossing 

would remain closed to motorized vehicle use. 

ACEC-III-MA- 25. The ACEC would remain a ROW avoidance area; 

new ROWs would be restricted to the Jarbidge ROW corridor and 

locations of existing ROWs. 

ACEC-III-MA- 26. Lands within the ACEC would be in Land Tenure 

Zone 1. 

ACEC-III-MA- 27. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-III-MA- 28. The ACEC would remain closed to salable mineral 

development. 

ACEC-III-MA- 29. Recommend lands within the ACEC for withdrawal 

from mining laws for locatable exploration and development. 

August 2010 2-218 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

Objective 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-III-O- 3. Manage the 

lands within the Sand Point 

ACEC to protect their historic, 

cultural, paleontological, and 

geologic values. 

Allocation 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-III-A- 3. Manage 950 acres of public land as the Sand Point 

ACEC (Map 109). 

Management Actions 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-III-MA- 30. Manage paleontological resources within the 

ACEC in accordance with the 1988 Sand Point Natural History 

Management Plan. Modify the 1988 plan to encompass the Morgan 

property extension and to be in conformance with the revised RMP. 

ACEC-III-MA- 31. The ACEC would be closed to fossil collecting 

except under permit for scientific research. 

ACEC-III-MA- 32. Limit BLM management activities and authorized 

and allowed uses that may contribute to water or wind erosion in the 

ACEC. 

ACEC-III-MA- 33. Work cooperatively with adjacent land owners to 

reduce or eliminate run-off from the agricultural fields that erode soils 

within the ACEC. 

ACEC-III-MA- 34. No surface-disturbing activities would be allowed 

in the ACEC unless they are directly related to research on the 

ACEC’s cultural, paleontological, or geological resources or they can 

be mitigated. 

ACEC-III-MA- 35. MIST would be used to suppress wildland fires 

within the ACEC to protect the paleontological resources. The 

authorized officer may allow the use of bull dozers to construct 

control lines within the ACEC on a case-by-case basis. However, 

dozer lines would be rehabilitated to minimize erosion. 

ACEC-III-MA- 36. Manage the ACEC as VRM Class III, except within 

the Oregon NHT protective corridor, which would be managed as 

VRM Class II. 

ACEC-III-MA- 37. The ACEC would be available for livestock 

grazing. 

ACEC-III-MA- 38. New range infrastructure may be considered if it 

does not impair the relevant and important values of the ACEC. Any 

infrastructure would be located so that it does not increase or 

encourage livestock trailing across fossil-bearing areas, cultural 

resource sites, or Oregon NHT ruts. 

ACEC-III-MA- 39. Salt or other livestock supplements would not be 

placed within 0.25 miles of fossil-bearing areas or cultural resource 

sites. Locations off limits to salt or other livestock supplements would 

be made known to the livestock permittees. 

ACEC-III-MA- 40. Motorized vehicle use within the ACEC would be 

limited to designated routes. 

2-219 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ACECs 

ACEC-III-MA- 41. Consider upgrading the Wilson Grade Road if 

there is increased need for access for fire suppression activities or 

research. 

ACEC-III-MA- 42. Structures directly related to the preservation or 

interpretation of the site may be allowed (e.g., kiosks, protective 

barriers). 

ACEC-III-MA- 43. The ACEC would be a ROW exclusion area. 

ACEC-III-MA- 44. Lands within the ACEC would be in Land Tenure 

Zone 1. 

ACEC-III-MA- 45. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-III-MA- 46. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral 

development. 

ACEC-III-MA- 47. Recommend lands within the ACEC for withdrawal 

from mining laws for locatable exploration and development. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

ACEC-IV-O- 1. Manage the 

lands within the BruneauJarbidge ACEC to protect their 

cultural, scenic, fish, and 

botanical values. 

Allocation 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

ACEC-IV-A- 1. Manage 123,000 acres of public land as the 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC (Map 110). 

Management Actions 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

ACEC-IV-MA- 1. Restore playas occupied by Davis peppergrass to 

improve natural hydrologic function and habitat on a case-by-case 

basis. Restoration activities may include filling pit reservoirs, 

stabilizing erosion areas, and planting native species with similar 

pollinators. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 2. Monitor juniper encroachment into the riparian 

area, and consider juniper treatments to improve bull trout habitat. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 3. Areas within the ACEC with concentrated 

recreational and livestock grazing use would be a high priority for 

noxious weeds and invasive plants treatment with integrated weed 

management techniques for control, containment, and where 

practical, eradication. Special stipulations would apply for noxious 

weed and invasive plants treatments in Davis peppergrass habitat. 

Use of domestic sheep or goats to reduce noxious weeds would not 

be allowed within the ACEC to eliminate potential contact with 

bighorn sheep. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 4. The ACEC would be a Critical Suppression Area. 

August 2010 2-220 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

ACEC-IV-MA- 5. MIST would be used to suppress wildland fires 

within the ACEC. Fire lines would be rehabilitated to help stabilize 

soils. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 6. Manage the portion of the Jarbidge ROW corridor 

within the ACEC as VRM Class III; manage the remainder of the 

ACEC as VRM Class I. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 7. Adjust livestock grazing so livestock seasons of 

use would not overlap bighorn sheep breeding and winter periods in 

those pastures that contain bighorn sheep habitat (Appendix H). 

ACEC-IV-MA- 8. Adjust livestock seasons of use or stocking rates 

on a pasture-specific basis to minimize conflicts with bull trout 

spawning (late August through early November) and Davis 

peppergrass during flowering and when playas are most likely to 

contain water (December through June). 

ACEC-IV-MA- 9. Range infrastructure would be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis for retention, modification, or removal. New 

infrastructure would be allowed to the extent that it protects bull trout 

habitat, cultural resources, or botanical values. Prohibit placing of 

salt or other supplements within the ACEC to reduce livestock use of 

bighorn sheep habitat and protect big game winter range. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 10. Monitor recreational use within the ACEC. If this 

use reaches levels that impair the relevant and important values of 

the ACEC, implement protective measures appropriate to the type of 

recreational activity. Protective measures may include, but not be 

limited to, implementing a permit system for the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers in coordination with the Bruneau FO, requiring the 

use of certified weed-free forage and straw, and designating 

camping areas outside the ACEC. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 11. Consider SRPs within the ACEC on a case-bycase basis with mitigation for negative impacts to relevant and 

important values. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 12. Motorized vehicle use within the ACEC would be 

limited to designated routes. To avoid disturbing bighorn sheep 

during wintering and lambing periods or to protect other relevant and 

important values, seasonal closures of specific designated routes 

may be considered during the CTTMP. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 13. Continue to maintain the low level of human 

disturbance in bighorn sheep habitat by not constructing new roads 

or substantially improving other routes in the ACEC. Some 

designated routes within the ACEC, including the road to Indian Hot 

Springs, could have spot surface treatments to reduce resource 

damage due to road braiding and to improve public safety. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 14. The ACEC would be a ROW avoidance area; new 

ROWs would be restricted to ROW corridors and locations of existing 

ROWs. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 15. Lands within the ACEC would be in Land Tenure 

Zone 1; where practical, acquire private and/or State in holdings. The 

2-221 August 2010 
 

 

Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

ACEC designation and management would apply to lands acquired 

within the ACEC boundary. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 16. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 17. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral 

development. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 18. Recommend lands within the ACEC for 

withdrawal from mining laws for locatable exploration and 

development. 

Objective 

Inside Desert ACEC 

ACEC-IV-O- 2. Manage the 

lands within the Inside Desert 

ACEC to protect their botanical 

values. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Allocations 

Inside Desert ACEC 

Alternative IV-A 

ACEC-IV-A- 2. Manage 73,000 acres of public land as the 

Inside Desert ACEC (Map 110). 

Alternative IV-B (the Preferred Alternative) 

ACEC-IV-A- 3. Manage 41,000 acres of public land as the 

Inside Desert ACEC (Map 110). 

Management Actions 

Inside Desert ACEC 

ACEC-IV-MA- 19. Restore slickspot peppergrass habitat by planting 

native shrubs, grasses, and forbs to improve ecological function and 

increase pollinators. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 20. Seed only native species, with emphasis on plants 

with similar pollinators. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 21. Where practical, vegetation treatments, including 

drill seeding, would avoid concentrations of slickspots. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 22. The ACEC would be a high priority for noxious 

weeds and invasive plants treatment with integrated weed 

management techniques for control, containment, and where 

practical, eradication. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 23. The ACEC would be a Critical Suppression Area. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 24. Staging areas for fire suppression and 

rehabilitation activities would be located outside the ACEC. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 25. Manage the ACEC as VRM Class III. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 26. The ACEC would not be available for livestock 

grazing. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 27. Remove troughs, fences, or other infrastructure 

within the ACEC. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 28. Camping would not be allowed within the ACEC. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 29. Lands within the ACEC would be in Land Tenure 

Zone 1; where practical, acquire State inholdings. The ACEC 

August 2010 2-222 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

designation and management would apply to lands acquired within 

the ACEC boundary. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 30. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 31. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral 

development. 

Objectives 

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC

Alternative IV-A 

ACEC-IV-O- 3. Manage 

the lands within the 

Jarbidge Foothills 

ACEC to protect their 

cultural, fish, wildlife, 

and botanical values. 

Allocations 

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC

Alternative IV-A 

ACEC-IV-A- 4. Manage 136,000 acres of public land as the 

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC (Map 110). 

Management Actions 

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC

Alternative IV-A 

ACEC-IV-MA- 32. Improving, expanding, connecting, and 

restoring native plant communities would be a high priority 

within the ACEC. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 33. Restore mountain shrub habitat for sagegrouse. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 34. Restore habitat for Columbia spotted 

frogs (spotted frogs) in Rocky Canyon, Timber Canyon, 

Shack, and Bear Creeks. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 35. Restore redband trout habitat and reduce 

habitat fragmentation in redband trout occupied watersheds. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 36. The ACEC would be a high priority for 

noxious weeds and invasive plants treatment with integrated 

weed management techniques for control, containment, and 

where practical, eradication. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 37. The ACEC would be a Critical 

Suppression Area. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 38. Manage the majority of the ACEC as 

VRM Class III, where not otherwise designated as VRM 

Class I or II (see the Visual Resources section). 

ACEC-IV-MA- 39. Livestock seasons of use or stocking 

rates would be adjusted within the ACEC to minimize 

conflicts with redband trout, sage-grouse wintering, 

breeding, and nesting periods (Appendix H); and restoration 

projects. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 40. Monitor recreational use within the ACEC. 

If this use reaches levels that impair the relevant and 

important values of the ACEC, implement protective 

measures appropriate to the type of recreational activity. 

Protective measures may include but not be limited to 

2-223 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Special Designation s 

ACECs 

designating camping areas within the ACEC; requiring the 

use of certified weed-free forage and straw; and installing 

protective barriers to protect relevant and important values. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 41. Routes would be designated through the 

CTTMP to increase core habitat size for sage-grouse. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 42. BLM-managed lands within the ACEC can 

be exchanged for non-BLM-managed lands within the 

ACEC, consistent with the Land Tenure section; where 

practical, acquire private and/or State in holdings. The ACEC 

designation and management would apply to lands acquired 

within the ACEC boundary. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 43. The ACEC would be available for salable 

mineral development; where practical, use existing mineral 

pits and minimize new salable mineral developments within 

ACEC. Seasonal closures that restrict use or activities at the 

pits during important seasonal periods for fish and wildlife 

may be included when existing salable mineral permits are 

reauthorized and in new permits. 

Objective 

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC

Alternative IV-B (the Preferred 

Alternative) 

ACEC-IV-O- 4. Manage 

the lands within the 

Jarbidge Foothills 

ACEC to protect their 

cultural, wildlife, and 

botanical values. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Allocations 

Alternative IV-B (the Preferred Alternative) 

ACEC-IV-A- 5. Manage 66,000 acres of public lands as the 

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC (Map 110). 

Management Actions 

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC

Alternative IV-B (the Preferred Alternative) 

ACEC-IV-MA- 44. Improving, expanding, connecting, and 

restoring native plant communities would be a high priority 

within the ACEC. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 45. Restore mountain shrub habitat for sagegrouse. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 46. The ACEC would be a high priority for 

noxious weeds and invasive plants treatment with integrated 

weed management techniques for control, containment, and 

where practical, eradication. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 47. The ACEC would be a Critical 

Suppression Area. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 48. Manage the majority of the ACEC as 

VRM Class III, where not otherwise designated as VRM 

Class I or II (see the Visual Resources section). 

ACEC-IV-MA- 49. Livestock seasons of use or stocking 

rates would be adjusted within the ACEC to minimize 

conflicts with sage-grouse wintering, breeding, and nesting 

periods (Appendix H); and restoration projects. 

August 2010 2-224 
 

Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ACEC-IV-MA- 50. Monitor recreational use within the ACEC. 

If this use reaches levels that impair the relevant and 

important values of the ACEC, implement protective 

measures appropriate to the type of recreational activity. 

Protective measures may include but not be limited to 

designating camping areas within the ACEC; requiring the 

use of certified weed-free forage and straw; and installing 

protective barriers to protect relevant and important values. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 51. Routes would be designated through the 

CTTMP to increase core habitat size for sage-grouse. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 52. BLM-managed lands within the ACEC can 

be exchanged for non-BLM-managed lands, consistent with 

the Land Tenure section; where practical, acquire private 

and/or State in holdings. The ACEC designation and 

management would apply to lands acquired within the ACEC 

boundary. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 53. The ACEC would be available for salable 

mineral development; where practical, use existing mineral 

pits and minimize new salable mineral developments within 

ACEC. Seasonal closures that restrict use or activities at the 

pits during important seasonal periods for sage-grouse may 

be included when existing salable mineral permits are 

reauthorized and in new permits. 

Objective 

Lower Bruneau Canyon 

ACEC 

ACEC-IV-O- 5. Manage the 

lands within the Lower Bruneau 

Canyon ACEC to protect their 

fish and botanical resources. 

Allocations 

Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC

ACEC-IV-A- 6. Manage 1,100 acres of public land as the Lower 

Bruneau Canyon ACEC (Map 110). 

Management Actions 

Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC

ACEC-IV-MA- 54. All actions within the ACEC must be consistent 

with the IMP and with allocations and management actions made for 

WSAs, unless the WSA is released by Congress. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 55. Restore native upland and riparian plant 

communities within the ACEC to improve habitat for special status 

species. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 56. The ACEC would be a high priority for noxious 

weeds and invasive plants treatment with integrated weed 

management techniques for control, containment, and where 

practical, eradication. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 57. The ACEC would be a Critical Suppression Area. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 58. The ACEC’s VRM Class would follow WSA 

guidelines. In the event the WSA is released, manage the ACEC as 

VRM Class III. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 59. The ACEC would be available for livestock 

grazing and new infrastructure as long as they are compatible with 

2-225 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Special Designatio ns 

ACECs 

recovery of the area, including protecting seed production of special 

status plants and reducing impacts to their pollinators. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 60. Lands within the ACEC would be in Land Tenure 

Zone 1. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 61. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 62. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral 

development. 

Objective 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-IV-O- 6. Manage the 

lands within the Sand Point 

ACEC to protect their historic, 

cultural, paleontological, and 

geologic values. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Allocation 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-IV-A- 7. Manage 950 acres of public land as the Sand Point 

ACEC (Map 110). 

Management Actions 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-IV-MA- 63. Manage paleontological resources within the 

ACEC in accordance with the 1988 Sand Point Natural History 

Management Plan. Modify the 1988 plan to encompass the Morgan 

property extension and to be in conformance with the revised RMP. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 64. The ACEC would be closed to fossil collecting 

except under permit for scientific research. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 65. Limit BLM management activities and authorized 

and allowed uses that may contribute to wind or water erosion in the 

ACEC. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 66. Work cooperatively with adjacent land owners to 

reduce or eliminate run-off from the agricultural fields that erode soils 

within the ACEC. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 67. No surface-disturbing activities would be allowed 

in the ACEC unless they are directly related to research on the 

ACEC’s cultural, paleontological, or geological resources or unless 

they can be mitigated. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 68. MIST would be used to suppress wildland fires 

within the ACEC to protect the paleontological resources. The 

authorized officer may allow the use of bull dozers to construct 

control lines within the ACEC on a case-by-case basis. However, 

dozer lines would be rehabilitated to minimize erosion. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 69. Manage the ACEC as VRM Class III, except 

within the Oregon NHT protective corridor. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 70. The ACEC would be available for livestock 

grazing. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 71. New range infrastructure may be considered if it 

does not impair the relevant and important values of the ACEC. Any 

infrastructure would be located so that it does not increase or 

encourage livestock trailing across fossil-bearing areas, cultural 

resource sites, or Oregon NHT ruts. 

August 2010 2-226 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

ACEC-IV-MA- 72. Salt or other livestock supplements would not be 

placed within 0.25 miles of fossil-bearing areas or cultural resource 

sites. Locations off limits to salt or other livestock supplements would 

be made known to the livestock permittees. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 73. Motorized vehicle use within the ACEC would be 

limited to designated routes. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 74. Consider upgrading the Wilson Grade Road if 

there is increased need for access for fire suppression activities or 

research. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 75. Structures directly related to the preservation or 

interpretation of the site may be allowed (e.g., kiosks, protective 

barriers). 

ACEC-IV-MA- 76. The ACEC would be a ROW exclusion area. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 77. Lands within the ACEC would be in Land Tenure 

Zone 1. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 78. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 79. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral 

development. 

ACEC-IV-MA- 80. Recommend lands within the ACEC for 

withdrawal from mining laws for locatable exploration and 

development. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

Lower Bruneau Canyon 

ACEC 

ACEC-V-O- 1. Manage the 

lands within the Lower Bruneau 

Canyon ACEC to protect their 

fish and botanical values. 

Allocation 

Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC

ACEC-V-A- 1. Manage 1,100 acres of public lands as the Lower 

Bruneau Canyon ACEC (Map 111). 

Management Actions 

Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC

ACEC-V-MA- 1. All actions within the ACEC must be consistent with 

the IMP and with allocations and management actions made for 

WSAs, unless the WSA is released by Congress. 

ACEC-V-MA- 2. Restore native upland and riparian plant 

communities within the ACEC to improve habitat for special status 

species. 

ACEC-V-MA- 3. The ACEC would be a high priority for noxious 

weeds and invasive plants treatment with integrated weed 

management techniques for control, containment, and where 

practical, eradication. 

ACEC-V-MA- 4. The ACEC would be a Critical Suppression Area. 

2-227 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

ACEC-V-MA- 5. The ACEC’s VRM Class would follow WSA 

guidelines. In the event the WSA is released, manage the ACEC as 

VRM Class III. 

ACEC-V-MA- 6. The ACEC would not be available for livestock 

grazing. 

ACEC-V-MA- 7. Lands within the ACEC would be in Land Tenure 

Zone 1. 

ACEC-V-MA- 8. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-V-MA- 9. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral 

development. 

Objective 

Middle Snake ACEC 

ACEC-V-O- 2. Manage the 

lands within the Middle Snake 

ACEC to protect their fish and 

botanical values. 

 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Allocation 

Middle Snake ACEC 

ACEC-V-A- 2. Manage 7,500 acres of public lands as the Middle 

Snake ACEC (Map 111). 

Management Actions 

Middle Snake ACEC 

ACEC-V-MA- 10. Restore habitat for special status plants within the 

ACEC. Maintain existing high-quality special status plant habitat. 

ACEC-V-MA- 11. Where habitat is suitable, transplant or seed 

special status plants within the ACEC. 

ACEC-V-MA- 12. The ACEC would be a high priority for noxious 

weeds and invasive plants treatment with integrated weed 

management techniques for control, containment, and where 

practical, eradication. Special conditions would apply in habitat 

occupied by special status plant species. 

ACEC-V-MA- 13. The ACEC would be a Critical Suppression Area. 

ACEC-V-MA- 14. Mitigate the effects of surface-disturbing activities 

in the ACEC, such as recreation and transportation. 

ACEC-V-MA- 15. Implement use restrictions within the ACEC in 

areas with slopes greater than 20%, or in areas where soils are rated 

severe or very severe for wind erosion or high for water erosion. 

ACEC-V-MA- 16. Manage the ACEC as VRM Class III. 

ACEC-V-MA- 17. The ACEC would not be available for livestock 

grazing. 

ACEC-V-MA- 18. Livestock trailing through the ACEC would be 

allowed in the designated trailing corridor, but livestock would not be 

allowed to remain in the ACEC overnight. 

ACEC-V-MA- 19. Monitor recreational use within the ACEC. If this 

use reaches levels that impair the relevant and important values of 

the ACEC, implement protective measures appropriate to the type of 

recreational activity. Protective measures may include, but not be 

August 2010 2-228 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

limited to, improving access routes to recreational sites along the 

Snake River, installing barriers to protect relevant and important 

values, and implementing measures to address water quality and 

public health concerns. 

ACEC-V-MA- 20. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-V-MA- 21. BLM-managed lands within the ACEC can be 

exchanged for non-BLM-managed lands, consistent with the Land 

Tenure section, in order to obtain lands with relevant and important 

values or to improve management. Where practical, acquire private 

or State inholdings. The ACEC designation and management would 

apply to lands acquired within the ACEC boundary. 

ACEC-V-MA- 22. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral 

development. 

ACEC-V-MA- 23. Recommend lands within the ACEC for withdrawal 

from mining laws for locatable exploration and development. 

Objective 

Sagebrush Sea ACEC

ACEC-V-O- 3. Manage the 

lands within the Sagebrush Sea 

ACEC to protect their cultural, 

fish, wildlife, and botanical 

values. 

Allocations 

Sagebrush Sea ACEC

ACEC-V-A- 3. Manage 958,000 acres of public land as the 

Sagebrush Sea ACEC (Map 111). 

Management Actions 

Sagebrush Sea ACEC

ACEC-V-MA- 24. All actions within the portions of the ACEC that are 

also within WSAs must be consistent with the IMP and with 

allocations and management actions made for WSAs. 

ACEC-V-MA- 25. Improving, expanding, connecting, and restoring 

native plant communities through active and passive treatments for 

fuels, noxious weeds, invasive plants, and non-native perennial plant 

communities would be a high priority within the ACEC. 

ACEC-V-MA- 26. Implement management actions that improve 

riparian condition and reduce habitat fragmentation in redband trout 

occupied streams. 

ACEC-V-MA- 27. Within 1 mile of bighorn sheep habitat, use of 

domestic sheep or goats to reduce noxious weeds would not be 

allowed to eliminate potential contact of domestic sheep or goats 

with bighorn sheep. 

ACEC-V-MA- 28. Treatments would include only native plants. 

Special stipulations would apply for treatments in occupied slickspot 

and Davis peppergrass habitats, such as establishing buffer areas 

and not allowing aerial spraying in occupied habitat. 

ACEC-V-MA- 29. Restore playas occupied by Davis peppergrass to 

improve natural hydrologic function and habitat on a case-by-case 

basis. Restoration activities may include filling pit reservoirs, 

stabilizing erosion areas, and planting native species with similar 

pollinators. 

2-229 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ACECs 

ACEC-V-MA- 30. BLM management activities and authorized uses 

would result in no net loss of native vegetation; this restriction would 

not apply to fire suppression activities. 

ACEC-V-MA- 31. Manage the majority of the ACEC as VRM Class 

III, where not otherwise designated VRM Class I or II (see the Visual 

Resources section). 

ACEC-V-MA- 32. The ACEC would be a Critical Suppression Area. 

ACEC-V-MA- 33. Livestock grazing would be at reduced utilization 

levels. 

ACEC-V-MA- 34. Livestock seasons of use or stocking rates would 

be adjusted within the ACEC on a pasture-specific basis to minimize 

conflicts with bighorn sheep lambing and sage-grouse breeding and 

nesting periods (Appendix H) and the active growing period of native 

grasses. 

ACEC-V-MA- 35. Reduce livestock infrastructure and associated 

routes to amounts appropriate to ACEC objectives and the levels of 

livestock grazing within the ACEC. Livestock water troughs, corrals, 

or other related livestock facilities in reference areas within the 

Sagebrush ACEC would be removed. Pipelines would remain in the 

ground to minimize disturbance. 

ACEC-V-MA- 36. Monitor recreational use within the ACEC. If this 

use reaches levels that impair the relevant and important values of 

the ACEC, implement protective measures appropriate to the type of 

recreational activity. Protective measures may include but not be 

limited to designating camping areas within the ACEC; requiring the 

use of certified weed-free forage and straw; and installing protective 

barriers to protect relevant and important values. 

ACEC-V-MA- 37. Routes would be designated through the CTTMP 

to increase core habitat size for sage-grouse. 

ACEC-V-MA- 38. The ACEC would be a ROW avoidance area; new 

ROWs would be restricted to ROW corridors and locations of existing 

ROWs. 

ACEC-V-MA- 39. Lands within the ACEC would be in Land Tenure 

Zone 1; where practical, private and/or State inholdings would be 

acquired. Lands acquired within the ACEC would become part of the 

ACEC. 

ACEC-V-MA- 40. The ACEC would be available for salable mineral 

development. Where practical, use existing mineral pits and 

minimize new salable mineral developments within the ACEC. 

Seasonal closures that restrict use or activities at the pits during 

important seasonal periods for fish and wildlife may be included 

when existing salable mineral permits are reauthorized and in new 

permits. 

August 2010 2-230 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Objective 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-V-O- 4. Manage the 

lands within the Sand Point 

ACEC to protect their historic, 

cultural, paleontological, and 

geologic values. 

Chapter 2: Special Designations 

ACECs 

Allocation 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-V-A- 4. Manage 950 acres of public land as the Sand Point 

ACEC (Map 111). 

Management Actions 

Sand Point ACEC 

ACEC-V-MA- 41. Manage paleontological resources within the 

ACEC in accordance with the 1988 Sand Point Natural History 

Management Plan. Modify the 1988 plan to encompass the Morgan 

property extension and to be in conformance with the revised RMP. 

ACEC-V-MA- 42. The ACEC would be closed to fossil collecting 

except under permit for scientific research. 

ACEC-V-MA- 43. Limit BLM management activities and authorized 

and allowed uses that may contribute to wind or water erosion in the 

ACEC. 

ACEC-V-MA- 44. Work cooperatively with adjacent land owners to 

reduce or eliminate run-off from the agricultural fields that erode soils 

within the ACEC. 

ACEC-V-MA- 45. No surface-disturbing activities would be allowed 

unless they are directly related to studies or research on the cultural, 

paleontological, or geological resources present or unless they can 

be mitigated. 

ACEC-V-MA- 46. MIST would be used to suppress wildland fires 

within the ACEC to protect the paleontological resources. The 

authorized officer may allow the use of bull dozers to construct 

control lines within the ACEC on a case-by-case basis. However, 

dozer lines would be rehabilitated to minimize erosion. 

ACEC-V-MA- 47. Manage the ACEC as VRM Class III, except within 

the Oregon NHT protective corridor, which would be managed as 

VRM Class II. 

ACEC-V-MA- 48. The ACEC would not be available for livestock 

grazing. 

ACEC-V-MA- 49. Motorized vehicle use within the ACEC would be 

limited to designated routes. 

ACEC-V-MA- 50. Consider upgrading the Wilson Grade Road if 

there is increased need for access for fire suppression activities or 

research. 

ACEC-V-MA- 51. Structures directly related to the preservation or 

interpretation of the site may be allowed (e.g., kiosks, protective 

barriers). 

ACEC-V-MA- 52. The ACEC would be a ROW exclusion area. 

ACEC-V-MA- 53. Lands within the ACEC would be in Land Tenure 

Zone 1. 

2-231 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

NHTs 

ACEC-V-MA- 54. The ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. 

ACEC-V-MA- 55. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral 

development. 

ACEC-V-MA- 56. Recommend lands within the ACEC for withdrawal 

from mining laws for locatable exploration and development. 

2.5.2. National Historic Trails (NHTs) 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

NHT-NA-O- 1. Protect and 

manage the Oregon NHT to 

preserve all remaining ruts and 

trail features; develop an 

interpretive marker program, 

signing, and facilities to serve 

trail users; and nominate to the 

National Register. 

Management Actions 

NHT-NA-MA- 1. Manage the Oregon NHT in accordance with 

guidelines established in the National Park Service Plan and in 

accordance with provisions of PL 90-543 and PL 95-625. 

NHT-NA-MA- 2. Develop a cultural plan for the Oregon Trail. 

NHT-NA-MA- 3. Develop a Recreation Activity Management Plan for 

the Oregon Trail. 

NHT-NA-MA- 4. Manage the Oregon Trail protective corridor as 

VRM Class I. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

NHT-CA-G- 1. The Oregon NHT corridor would be managed to preserve and protect the historic, scenic, 

and recreational values associated with the trail. 

Objective 

NHT-CA-O- 1. Protect, 

preserve, and provide 

opportunities to experience the 

historic, scenic, and recreational 

values of the Oregon NHT. 

Management Actions 

NHT-CA-MA- 1. Update BLM’s 1984 Oregon Trail Management Plan 

and ensure consistency with the National Park Service’s 1999 

Oregon NHT Comprehensive Management and Use Plan. 

NHT-CA-MA- 2. Until the 1984 plan is updated and unless otherwise 

directed in this document, continue to manage the Trail in 

accordance with the 1984 plan and in cooperation with the National 

Park Service. 

NHT-CA-MA- 3. The protective corridor of the Oregon NHT includes 

1/4 mile on either side of the trail or the visual horizon, whichever is 

less. 

NHT-CA-MA- 4. Manage the Oregon NHT protective corridor as an 

avoidance area for surface-disturbing activities, including but not 

limited to: 

 Placement of salting, supplemental feeding, watering, and 

holding facilities for livestock; 

 Staging areas for recreational activities and events; and 

 Staging areas for fire suppression and rehabilitation activities. 

August 2010 2-232 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Special Designations 

NHTs 

NHT-CA-MA- 5. If use of a designated route within the Oregon NHT 

protective corridor is degrading the trail, the route would be modified 

or closed. 

NHT-CA-MA- 6. Manage the Oregon NHT protective corridor as 

VRM Class II; the foreground of the trail (1.25 miles on either side 

beyond the protective corridor) as well as the existing ROW corridors 

would be managed according to the Visual Resources section. 

NHT-CA-MA- 7. Design and implement restoration projects to 

mitigate the effects of natural and human-caused disturbances within 

the Oregon NHT protective corridor. 

NHT-CA-MA- 8. Lands within the Oregon NHT protective corridor 

are not available for disposal; non-BLM lands within the corridor are 

a high priority for acquisition. 

NHT-CA-MA- 9. Recommend the Oregon NHT protective corridor for 

withdrawal from mineral entry. 

NHT-CA-MA- 10. The Oregon NHT protective corridor is open to 

leasable mineral exploration and development with NSO. 

NHT-CA-MA- 11. The Oregon NHT protective corridor is closed to 

new salable mineral development. Existing salable mineral 

developments could be renewed but the footprint could not be 

expanded. 

NHT-CA-MA- 12. Proposed land use actions that could affect the 

Oregon NHT or the protective corridor would be analyzed to identify 

mitigation needs and ensure compliance with management 

objectives. 

NHT-CA-MA- 13. Developments such as roads, trails, pipelines, and 

power lines may be allowed to cross the Oregon NHT in areas where 

previous disturbance has occurred and after consultation with SHPO. 

NHT-CA-MA- 14. Surface-disturbing equipment, such as bulldozers 

and road graders, cannot be used on the Oregon NHT or within the 

protective corridor without management approval, unless to protect 

life or property. 

NHT-CA-MA- 15. Use techniques that minimize surface disturbance 

within the Oregon NHT protective corridor during seeding projects 

(emergency stabilization, burned area rehabilitation, fuels 

treatments, or restoration). Trail remnants would not be disturbed 

during seeding operations. 

NHT-CA-MA- 16. Minimize or prevent human-caused damage to 

Oregon NHT, including vandalism, unauthorized surface collection of 

artifacts, and unintentional disturbances, through educational and 

interpretive outreach programs. 

NHT-CA-MA- 17. Install and maintain signs identifying the routes of 

the Oregon NHT. 

2-233 August 2010 
 

 

	 	 

Chapter 2: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

WSRs 

2.5.3. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal and Objective 

WSR-NA-G- 1. Protect the scenic and recreational values of the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers through 

special designation and management. 

Objective 

See Goal and Objective. 

Allocations 

See allocations in Management Common to the No Action and All 

Action Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

WSR-NA-MA- 1. The Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers would be 

managed as components of the National Wild and Scenic River 

System until Congress acts. 

WSR-NA-MA- 2. Recommend the rim-to-rim corridor surrounding the 

suitable segments of the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers for withdrawal 

from mineral entry. 

WSR-NA-MA- 3. Create a utility avoidance area for 121 miles of 

suitable WSR segments. 

Management Common to the No Action and All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

See goals in Management Specific to the No Action Alternative and Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objectives in Management 

Specific to the No Action 

Alternative and Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

WSR-C-A- 1. Segments recommended suitable for inclusion in the 

WSR system include: 

 The Bruneau River from Blackrock Crossing to Hot Creek, and 

 The Jarbidge River from the Jarbidge Forks to Bruneau River 

confluence. 

WSR-C-A- 2. Segments eligible for inclusion in the WSR system 

include: 

 Salmon Falls Creek from the Nevada border to Salmon Falls 

Reservoir and from Salmon Falls Dam to Balanced Rock Park; 

 The Three Island, King Hill, and Hagerman reaches of the Snake 

River; 

 Jarbidge River from the FO boundary to the Jarbidge Forks; 

 Jarbidge River, East Fork from the FO boundary to Murphy Hot 

Springs and from Murphy Hot Springs to the Jarbidge Forks; 

 Cougar Point Creek from the FO boundary to Jarbidge River, 

East Fork confluence; and 

 Rocky Canyon Creek from its headwaters to Salmon Falls 

Creek, North Fork confluence. 

August 2010	 2-234 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Special Designations 

WSRs 

Management Actions 

See management specific to each alternative and in Management 

Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal and Objective 

WSR-CA-G- 1. Maintain or enhance the ORVs, free-flowing character, water quality, and tentative 

classification of designated, suitable, and eligible WSR segments. 

Objective 

See Goal and Objective. 

Allocations 

See allocations in Management Common to the No Action 

Alternative and All Action Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

WSR-CA-MA- 1. Manage the designated segments of the Bruneau 

and Jarbidge Rivers to maintain or enhance their ORVs, free-flowing 

character, water quality, and classification. 

WSR-CA-MA- 2. Manage the suitable segments of the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers to maintain or enhance their ORVs, free-flowing 

character, water quality, and tentative classification until Congress 

acts. 

WSR-CA-MA- 3. Protect or enhance the qualifying values of eligible 

segments pending a subsequent suitability determination or 

designation decision by Congress: their free-flowing characteristics 

cannot be modified, their ORVs and water quality are to be 

maintained or enhanced, and their tentative classification is to be 

maintained. 

WSR-CA-MA- 4. Conduct suitability study and make suitability 

determinations on eligible segments entirely within the planning area 

within five years; coordinate suitability studies on segments forming 

the boundary with other FOs with those offices. 

WSR-CA-MA- 5. Recommend designated, suitable, and eligible 

WSR corridors for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

WSR-CA-MA- 6. Designated, suitable, and eligible WSR corridors 

would be a ROW avoidance area; however, the existing utility 

corridor south of Murphy Hot Springs on Jarbidge River, East Fork 

and Jarbidge River would be retained. New ROWs within 

designated, suitable, and eligible WSR corridors must 

maintain/enhance the river segment's ORVs, free-flowing character, 

water quality, and tentative classification. 

WSR-CA-MA- 7. If, through legislation, Congress decides not to 

designate a suitable segment as part of the Wild and Scenic River 

System, the protective management outlined in this section would no 

longer apply and these segments would be managed according to 

direction in other sections of the RMP 

2-235 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

WSRs 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

See allocations in Management Common to the No Action 

Alternative and All Action Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

WSR-I-MA- 1. Designated, suitable, and eligible WSR corridors 

would be closed to salable mineral development. 

WSR-I-MA- 2. Designated, suitable, and eligible WSR corridors 

would be closed to mineral leasing. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

See allocations in Management Common to the No Action 

Alternative and All Action Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

WSR-II-MA- 1. Designated, suitable, and eligible WSR corridors 

would be open to salable mineral development. 

WSR-II-MA- 2. Designated, suitable, and eligible WSR corridors 

would be open to mineral leasing with no surface occupancy. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

See allocations in Management Common to the No Action 

Alternative and All Action Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

WSR-III-MA- 1. Designated, suitable, and eligible WSR corridors 

would be closed to salable mineral development. 

WSR-III-MA- 2. Designated, suitable, and eligible WSR corridors 

would be open to mineral leasing with NSO. 

August 2010 2-236 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Special Designations 

WSAs 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

See allocations in Management Common to the No Action 

Alternative and All Action Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

WSR-IV-MA- 1. Designated, suitable, and eligible WSR corridors 

would be closed to salable mineral development. 

WSR-IV-MA- 2. Designated, suitable, and eligible WSR corridors 

would be closed to mineral leasing. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

See allocations in Management Common to the No Action 

Alternative and All Action Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

WSR-V-MA- 1. Designated, suitable, and eligible WSR corridors 

would be closed to salable mineral development. 

WSR-V-MA- 2. Designated, suitable, and eligible WSR corridors 

would be closed to mineral leasing. 

2.5.4. Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal and Objective 

WSA-NA-G- 1. Manage 19,360 acres for wilderness in the planning area. 

Objective 

See Goal and Objective. 

Allocations 

See allocations in Management Common to the No Action and All 

Action Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

WSA-NA-MA- 1. Manage the Bruneau River-Sheep Creek WSA, 

Jarbidge River WSA, and the Lower Salmon Falls Creek WSA under 

the provisions of the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for 

Lands Under Wilderness Review until Congress acts on the 

wilderness recommendations. 

WSA-NA-MA- 2. Areas designated as wilderness by Congress 

would be managed in accordance with BLM wilderness management 

policy. Specific management provisions would be formulated in a 

2-237 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

WSAs 

wilderness management plan developed for each area following 

designation. 

WSA-NA-MA- 3. Areas determined by Congress to be nonsuitable 

for wilderness designation would be managed for other purposes. 

The tentative management scheme developed during the planning 

process would be given final consideration following Congressional 

action on the President's suitability recommendations. The following 

development is recommended in the Bruneau-Sheep Creek WSA 

and the Jarbidge River WSA if Congress does not designate these 

areas as wilderness: 

 14,600 acres of prescribed burning and drill seeding or 

interseeding specifically for wildlife, 

 1,500 acres of brush control and seeding, 

 4.3 miles of pasture fence, 

 1 spring development, 

 2 reservoir developments, and 

 1.4 miles of pipeline. 

WSA-NA-MA- 4. Modify fences to allow for pronghorn and mule deer 

passage in areas where wildlife needs are not being met. 

WSA-NA-MA- 5. Adjust livestock season of use, 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 or excluding grazing use from a specific 

period(s) of a grazing year. Season of use changes would be made 

after monitoring is completed, and along with other needed grazing 

use adjustments, or when activity plans are completed. Priority would 

be given to resolving conflicts on crucial wildlife habitat areas in poor 

ecological condition. 

Management Common to the No Action and All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

See goals in Management Specific to the No Action Alternative and Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objectives in Management 

Specific to the No Action 

Alternative and Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

WSA-C-A- 1. The Bruneau River-Sheep Creek WSA rim-to-rim and 

the Jarbidge River WSA rim-to-rim are recommended as suitable for 

wilderness. 

WSA-C-A- 2. The plateaus within the Bruneau River-Sheep Creek 

WSA and Jarbidge River WSA, as well as the entire Lower Salmon 

Falls Creek WSA are recommended nonsuitable for wilderness. 

Management Actions 

See management actions in Management Specific to the No Action 

Alternative, Management Common to All Action Alternatives, and 

management specific to each alternative. 

August 2010 2-238 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Special Designations 

WSAs 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal and Objective 

WSA-CA-G- 1. Manage the Jarbidge River WSA, Lower Salmon Falls Creek WSA, and Bruneau RiverSheep Creek WSA according to the IMP until designated as wilderness or released by Congress. 

Objective 

See Goal and Objective. 

Allocations 

See allocations in Management Common to the No Action and All 

Action Alternatives. 

Management Actions 

WSA-CA-MA- 1. Manage the Bruneau River-Sheep Creek WSA 

(64,000 acres), Jarbidge River WSA (28,000 acres), and Lower 

Salmon Falls Creek WSA (2,000 acres) to preserve their wilderness 

values according to the IMP (BLM-H-8550-1) and continue to 

manage them in that manner until Congress either designates the 

lands as wilderness or releases them for other uses. 

WSA-CA-MA- 2. Manage any designated wilderness according to 

the IMP until a Wilderness Management Plan is developed. 

WSA-CA-MA- 3. Continue to manage released lands within ACEC, 

WSR, or SRMA boundaries according to management specified for 

the ACEC, WSR, or SRMA. 

Management Specific to Alternative I 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

See allocations in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Management Action 

WSA-I-MA- 1. If any lands within WSAs are released by Congress 

from wilderness study, manage the released lands in accordance 

with the associated legislation. If not otherwise directed by 

legislation, they would not be managed for their wilderness 

characteristics, but instead would be managed according to direction 

for adjacent non-wilderness lands. 

Management Specific to Alternative II 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

See allocations in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Management Action 

WSA-II-MA- 1. If any lands within WSAs are released by Congress 

from wilderness study, manage the released lands in accordance 

with the associated legislation. If not otherwise directed by 

2-239 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

WSAs 

legislation, they would not be managed for their wilderness 

characteristics, but instead would be managed according to direction 

for adjacent non-wilderness lands. 

Management Specific to Alternative III 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

See allocations in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Management Action 

WSA-III-MA- 1. If any lands within WSAs are released by Congress 

from wilderness study, manage the released lands in accordance 

with the associated legislation. If not otherwise directed by 

legislation, they would not be managed for their wilderness 

characteristics, but instead would be managed according to direction 

for adjacent non-wilderness lands. 

Management Specific to Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

See allocations in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Management Action 

WSA-IV-MA- 1. If any lands within WSAs are released by Congress 

from wilderness study, manage the released lands in accordance 

with the associated legislation. If not otherwise directed by 

legislation, they would be managed for their wilderness 

characteristics according to the direction in the Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics section. 

Management Specific to Alternative V 

Goal 

See goal in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Objective 

See objective in Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Allocations 

See allocations in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Management Action 

WSA-V-MA- 1. If any lands within WSAs are released by Congress 

from wilderness study, manage the released lands in accordance 

with the associated legislation. If not otherwise directed by 

legislation, they would be managed for their wilderness 

characteristics according to the direction in the Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics section. 

August 2010 2-240 
 

	 

	 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Social and Economic Features 

Social and Economic Conditions 

Hazardous Materials 

2.6. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FEATURES 

2.6.1. Social and Economic Conditions 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

No objective stated.	 

Management Actions 

SE-NA-MA- 1. BLM will ensure any management action undertaken 

in connection with this plan is cost-effective and takes into account 

local social and economic factors. Cost-effectiveness may be 

determined by any method deemed appropriate by the Bureau for 

the specific management action involved. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

SE-CA-G- 1. Management of the resources and uses of public lands would provide social and economic 

benefits to residents, businesses, visitors, and future generations. 

Objective 

SE-CA-O- 1. Provide 

opportunities for economic and 

social benefit while maintaining 

natural and cultural resource 

values. 

Management Actions 

SE-CA-MA- 1. Planning for BLM management activities and 

authorized uses would consider whether the activity or action could 

be designed to support the social, economic, and environmental 

health and sustainability of affected communities of place. 

SE-CA-MA- 2. Consider proposals from communities of place and 

interest that contribute to their social, economic, and environmental 

health and sustainability. 

2.6.2. Hazardous Materials 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

No objective stated.	 

Management Actions 

No management actions stated. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal 

HM-CA-G- 1. Ensure hazardous materials concerns on public lands remain a high priority.
 

Objective 

HM-CA-O- 1. Mitigate issues 

related to hazardous materials. 

Management Actions 

HM-CA-MA- 1. Storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste 

on public lands would not be allowed or permitted. 

2-241 August 2010 
Chapter 2: Social and Economic Features Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Interpretation, Outreach, and Environmental Education 

	 

	 

HM-CA-MA- 2. Use law enforcement and public outreach to 

discourage the disposal of hazardous waste on public lands. 

HM-CA-MA- 3. Hazardous materials related to active mining is 

regulated by the Mining Safety and Health Administration (PL 91

173, Federal Mine Safety & Health Act of 1977); otherwise, storage 

and use of hazardous materials on public lands would not be allowed 

without BLM authorization. 

HM-CA-MA- 4. Responses to hazardous materials incidents and 

sites will be as outlined and approved by the contingency plans for 

hazardous materials incidents (e.g., 2005 Idaho BLM Contingency 

Plan for Hazardous Materials Incidents and 2001 Lower Snake River 

District Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan). 

HM-CA-MA- 5. Identify and mitigate unauthorized dumping sites and 

hazardous materials spills in accordance with applicable Federal, 

State, and local regulations. 

HM-CA-MA- 6. Develop interagency agreements with local law 

enforcement agencies to facilitate the enforcement of illegal dumping 

and hazardous material laws. 

HM-CA-MA- 7. Coordinate with local government agencies during 

hazardous materials prevention and response activities. 

­

2.6.3. Interpretation, Outreach, and Environmental Education 

Management Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Goal 

No goal stated. 

Objective 

No objective stated.	 

Management Actions 

No management actions stated. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Goal and Objective 

IOE-CA-G- 1. Working with partners, provide interpretation, outreach, and environmental education to 

highlight the natural, cultural, and historic features of the planning area and to further resource protection 

and public safety. 

Objective 

See Goal and Objective. 

Management Actions 

IOE-CA-MA- 1. Focus education, interpretation, and outreach on 

resources and activities occurring within the planning area. 

IOE-CA-MA- 2. Partner with the tribes and Federal, State, and local 

agencies to educate the public on resource protection through 

activities such as education tours, kiosks at major entrances to the 

planning area, interpretive signs at OHV staging areas, information 

on the identification, control, and prevention of noxious weeds and 

invasive plants, and programs such as Tread Lightly!® and Leave No 

Trace®. 

August 2010	 2-242 
Chapter 2: Social and Economic Features 

Interpretation, Outreach, and Environmental Education 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

IOE-CA-MA- 3. Create displays highlighting natural, cultural, and 

historic features of the planning area for use at area fairs, schools, 

public lands day, and other events.
 

IOE-CA-MA- 4. Participate in events that educate youth about 

natural resources.
 

IOE-CA-MA- 5. Minimize or prevent human-caused damage to 

public land resources, including vandalism, illegal dumping, and 

unauthorized surface collection of fossils and artifacts, through 

educational and interpretive outreach programs.
 

IOE-CA-MA- 6. Foster the public's understanding of the role of fire in
 

the ecosystem and the hazards associated with living in the WUI, 

and wildland fire prevention and suppression activities through 

methods such as:
 

 Tracting door to door, 

 Using mass media, 

 Providing outreach to local groups, 

 Developing interpretive signs and kiosks, and 

 Participating in the County Wildfire Protection Plan.
 

IOE-CA-MA- 7. Provide interpretation and education on special 

designations such as the Oregon NHT, WSAs, WSRs, and ACECs. 

IOE-CA-MA- 8. Provide education and outreach on resource 

protection for recreational users.
 

2-243 August 2010 
 

Chapter 2: Monitoring Implementation and Effectiveness of RMP Decisions Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

2.7. MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION AND 

EFFECTIVENESS OF RMP DECISIONS 

The regulations in 43 CFR 1610.4-9 require that land use plans establish intervals and standards for 

monitoring, based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions. Land use plan monitoring is the process of 

tracking the implementation of land use plan decisions (implementation monitoring) and collecting 

data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use plan decisions (effectiveness 

monitoring). Appendix P describes the process to be used for monitoring the implementation and 

effectiveness of RMP decisions; other monitoring BLM conducts for other purposes are not described in 

this section. 

August 2010 2-244 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2: Summary Tables 

Summary Comparison of Alternatives 

2.8. SUMMARY TABLES 

2.8.1. Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Table 2- 5 provides a summary of the primary differences between the six alternatives; differences 

between the two sub-alternatives of Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) are described only where 

they occur. In general, only those resources and uses that have been identified as being a planning issue 

or are related to a planning issue have differences between the action alternatives. 

Differences between the wording of goals, objectives, allocations, and management actions in the main 

text of Chapter 2 and the wording in the summary table should not be construed to confine or redefine 

management contained within alternatives. Some wording was modified to be more concise in the 

summary table. Sections are summarized in the order in which they appear in Chapter 2. 

2-245 August 2010 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

Table 2- 5. Summary Comparison of Alternatives 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Tribal Rights and Interests (TI) 

No goal stated. 

Goal TI-CA-G- 1. Manage public lands to protect resources and values associated with Native American treaty Goal TI-CA-G- 2. Manage natural and cultural resources of importance to the tribes in a manner that respects 

values. 

Resources – Air and Atmospheric Values (AAV) No goal stated. No objective stated. 

Goal AAV-CA-G-1. Ensure BLM management activities and authorized uses contribute to maintaining the qua

resources.  Objective AAV-CA-O-1. Maintain the quality of air resources and limit impacts to air quality to meet NAAQS 

Resources – Geologic Features (GE) No goal stated. No objective stated. 

Goal GE-CA-G- 1. Manage unique geologic features for their tribal, scientific, recreational, and educational u Objective GE-CA-O- 1. Protect unique geologic features and provide opportunities for their use and enjoyment

Resources – Soil Resources (SR) No goal stated.  Objective SR-NA-O- 1. 

Manage soils to maintain productivity and to minimize erosion. 

Goal SR-CA-G- 1. Maintain or enhance biological and physical functions and stability of soils. 

 Objective SR-CA-O- 1. Manage resources and uses to maintain or enhance biological and physical functions an

Resources – Water Resources (WR) No goal stated.  Objective WR-NA-O- 1. 

Maintain or improve water quality in accordance with State and Federal standards. 

Goal WR-CA-G- 1. Maintain or improve the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources.  Objective WR-CA-O- 1. Make progress towards meeting State and Federal water quality standards. 

2-246 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Resources – Vegetation Communities – Upland Vegetation (UV) 

No goal stated. Goal UV-CA-G- 1. Manage upland vegetation communities to promote soil stability, water infiltration, nutrient 

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. Mavegetation to restore thresiliency of ecosystem structure and function reduce fragmentation habitat for sage-grousand other native speci

 Objective UV-NA-O- 1. 

Improve lands in poor ecological condition across the planning area. 

 Objective UV-I-O- 1. 

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

 Objective UV-II-O- 1. 

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

 Objective UV-III-O- 1. 

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

 Objective UV-IV-O

Manage vegetation VMA A to achieve VSG acres below: 

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. 

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 

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 

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 Acr

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

Unvegetated Areas 2,

2-247 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

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. 

 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 

 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 

 Objective UV-III-O- 2. 

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

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 

 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,

 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: 

Implement interseeding or 

reseeding treatments for 

wildlife on 9,000 acres, primarily in the southern 

half of the planning area. 

VSG Acres 

Annual 7,500 

Non-Native Perennial 37,500 

Non-Native Understory 5,000 

Native Grassland 65,000 

Native Shrubland 195,000 

Unvegetated Areas 2,500 

VSG Acres 

Annual 7,500 

Non-Native Perennial 67,500 

Non-Native Understory 10,000 

Native Grassland 132,500 

Native Shrubland 92,500 

Unvegetated Areas 2,500 

VSG Acres 

Annual 7,500 

Non-Native Perennial 60,000 

Non-Native Understory 22,500 

Native Grassland 60,000 

Native Shrubland 157,500 

Unvegetated Areas 5,000 

VSG Acr

Annual 7,

Non-Native Perennial 

Non-Native Understory 50,

Native Grassland 32,

Native Shrubland 220,

Unvegetated Areas 2,

2-248 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

 Objective UV-I-O- 4. 

Manage vegetation in 

VMA D to achieve the 

VSG acres below: 

VSG Acres 

Annual 2,500 

Non-Native Perennial 15,000 

Non-Native Understory 12,500 

Native Grassland 17,500 

Native Shrubland 152,500 

Unvegetated Areas 10,000 

 Objective UV-II-O- 4. 

Manage vegetation in 

VMA D to achieve the 

VSG acres below: 

VSG Acres 

Annual 2,500 

Non-Native Perennial 20,000 

Non-Native Understory 0 

Native Grassland 72,500 

Native Shrubland 105,000 

Unvegetated Areas 10,000 

 Objective UV-III-O- 4. 

Manage vegetation in 

VMA D to achieve the 

VSG acres below: 

VSG Acres 

Annual 2,500 

Non-Native Perennial 7,500 

Non-Native Understory 10,000 

Native Grassland 55,000 

Native Shrubland 125,000 

Unvegetated Areas 10,000 

 Objective UV-IV-O

Manage vegetation 

VMA D to achieve 

VSG acres below: 

VSG Acr

Annual 2,

Non-Native Perennial 

Non-Native Understory 5,

Native Grassland 7,

Native Shrubland 185,

Unvegetated Areas 10,

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 

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 sagegrouse 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 fsage-grouse, other spestatus species, mule deand pronghorn. The priority for vegetatreatments would be:  Treatments in VM

to improve sagegrouse habitat. 

 Treatments in VM

to reconnect and expand habitat for sage-grouse. 

2-249 
No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

improvement using seed mixtures for both wildlife and livestock. 

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 II

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. 

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 resource p

No similar management action. 

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

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

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

2-250 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Resources – Vegetation Communities – Riparian Areas and Wetlands (RI) 

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 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-O- 

Same as Alternative 

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 species 

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 stre

 Category 3 – Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre: approximately 150 feet from the edge  Category 4 – Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, landslides, and landslide-p

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

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

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

activities. 

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 FAR or FAR-DN (77 miles); management emphasis for Priority 1 stream

 Priority 2 streams – Streams rated as FAR-UP or NF (63 miles); management emphasis for Priority 2 streams 

 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 fire breaks would be a high priority for restoration. 

Stream reaches containspecial status species their habitat would bhigh priority for restoration. 

2-251 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

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. 

Resources – Fish and Wildlife – Fish (FI) No goal stated.  Objective FI-NA-O- 1. 

Maintain 1987 condition of fish habitat in MUAs 7 and 13; improve 39 miles of fisheries habitat in MUAs 10, 11, 12, and 15. 

Goal FI-I-G- 1. Manage public lands to promote diverse, structured, resilient, and connected habitats for fish.  Objective FI-I-O- 1. 

Maintain or improve streams so 70% of the miles of fish-bearing streams are properly functioning for fish. The remaining 30% of fishbearing streams would be moving toward properly functioning for fish in the life of the plan. 

Goal FI-II-G- 1. Manage public lands to maintain or improve habitat for fish.  Objective FI-II-O- 1. 

Maintain or improve all fish-bearing streams so they remain or are moving toward properly functioning for fish in the life of the plan. 

Goal FI-III-G- 1. Manage public lands to maintain habitat for fish while reducing wildland fire size and intensity.  Objective FI-III-O- 1. 

Same as Alternative II. 

Goal FI-IV-G- 1. Same as Alternative I.  Objective FI-IV-O- 

Maintain or improvstreams so 70% of tmiles of fish-bearinstreams and their perennial tributaries properly functioning fish. The remaining of miles of fish-beastreams and their perennial tributaries moving toward propfunctioning for fish the life of the plan. 

Resources – Fish and Wildlife – Wildlife (WI) No goal stated.  Objective WI-NA-O- 1. 

Maintain present levels of upland game nesting and cover habitat in the northern third of the planning area and in the Bruneau-Sheep Creek and Jarbidge River WSAs. 

 Objective WI-NA-O- 2. 

Manage the cheatgrass study area for curlews. 

Goal WI-I-G- 1. Manage public lands to promote diverse, structured, resilient, and connected habitats for wildlife.  Objective WI-I-O- 1. 

Maintain or improve habitat for big game species by managing uses and activities and actively restoring annual, non-native perennial, and native 

Goal WI-II-G- 1. Manage public lands to maintain or improve habitat for wildlife.  Objective WI-II-O- 1. 

Maintain or improve wildlife habitat in native communities while promoting commercial uses throughout the planning area. 

Goal WI-III-G- 1. Manage public lands to maintain habitat for wildlife while reducing wildland fire size and intensity.  Objective WI-III-O- 1. 

Maintain wildlife habitat in native communities while reducing wildland fire size and intensity throughout the planning area. 

Goal WI-IV-G- 1. Same as Alternative I.  Objective WI-IV-O

Maintain or improvwildlife habitat by managing uses and activities and activerestoring annual, nonative perennial, annative communities

2-252 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

 Objective WI-NA-O-3. 

Manage wildlife habitat to provide a diversity of vegetation and habitats. 

 Objective WI-NA-O- 4. 

Manage big game habitat to support 7,360 winter mule deer, 2,565 mule deer year-round, 1,932 pronghorn; and 364 bighorn sheep.

 communities. 

Priority for habitat management would be given to habitat for Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, and other BLM Sensitive species. 

Mule deer and special status species, including bighorn sheep and sagegrouse, have the highest priority for habitat management; secondary priorities are pronghorn, chukar, and pheasant. 

Sage-grouse and other special status species are priority species for habitat management. 

Same as Alternative II. Sage-grouse, other sp

status species, mule dand pronghorn are priority species for habmanagement. 

Resources – Special Status Species (SS) No goal stated. Goal SS-CA-G- 1. Manage public lands to contribute to the conservation and recovery of sage-grouse and othe Objective SS-NA-O- 1. 

Protect and enhance Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive species habitats in order to maintain or enhance populations within the planning area. Enhance, restore and/or maintain habitat conditions and availability for special status species and prevent all avoidable loss of habitat. 

 Objective SS-I-O- 1. 

Maintain or improve the quality and quantity of habitat for sage-grouse and other special status species by managing public land activities to sustain or benefit those species. 

 Objective SS-II-O- 1. 

Maintain or improve the quality of habitat for sage-grouse and other special status species by managing public land activities to sustain or benefit those species. 

 Objective SS-III-O- 1. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Objective SS-IV-O- 

Same as Alternative 

2-253 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Maintain present areas for sage-grouse nesting habitat in the East Devil area, and improve sage-grouse nesting in the BruneauSheep Creek and Jarbidge River WSAs. Where applicable, Guidelines for Habitat Protection in Sage Grouse Range (1973), Sage Grouse Management Practices (Western States Sage Grouse Committee, 1982), and Habitat Requirements and Management Recommendations for Sage Grouse (Call, 1979) would be followed. 

Follow conservation plans, agreements, and strategies for special status species. Implement management actions described in the Upland Vegetation section to maintain or improve habitat for sag

species. Maintain or improve the habitat for special status species by protecting and restoring their habitat, controlling nox

and minimizing direct habitat disturbance. BLM guidelines for sage-grouse habitat management would be used (e.g., 2006 Conservation Plan for the Greate

County and Jarbidge Local Working Group Sage-grouse Plans). Sage-grouse would be used as an umbrella specie

sagebrush-obligate species. Manage native shrubland communities in a landscape context to ensure that the seasonal habitat needs of sage-grospecies are met across the planning area, where site conditions are suitable. 

Maintain a separation of Management in bighorn Management in bighorn Same as Alternative II. Management in bighor

use between cattle and sheep habitat includes: sheep habitat includes: sheep habitat includes

bighorn sheep by not  Removing troughs  Keeping existing  Removing troughdeveloping livestock water within 1 mile of troughs and reservoirs reservoirs within sources within 1 mile of canyon rims  Keeping existing mile of habitat bighorn sheep habitat  Removing fences and fences and corrals  Removing fences 

unless adverse impacts can be mitigated. 

corrals within 1 mile of canyon rims, except boundary fences 

 Locating new troughs, 

reservoirs, permanent fences, and corrals at least 1 mile from canyon rims 

 Locating new troughs, 

reservoirs, permanent fences, and corrals within bighorn sheep habitat if they do not conflict with bighorn sheep 

corrals within 1 mhabitat, except boundary fences 

 Locating new trou

reservoirs, permanfences, and corralleast 1 mile from habitat. 

2-254 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Protect the aquatic habitat 

of Sensitive and Candidate 

species in the Snake River below Lower Salmon Falls 

Dam. 

Implement the ARMS and other management actions in the Riparian Areas and Wetlands section to maintain or i

fish and aquatic invertebrates and other special status species dependent on riparian areas and wetlands. 

Identify and implement specific habitat improvement projects in redband trout habitat to reduce habitat fragmenta

recovery. Identify and implement specific habitat improvement projects for bull trout as identified in the Draft Recovery Pla

Population Segment of Bull Trout (FWS, 2004). 

Resources – Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants (NW) No goal stated. Goal NW-CA-G- 1. Manage public lands to prevent, eliminate, or control noxious weeds and invasive plants. No objective stated.  Objective NW-I-O- 1. 

Reduce the number of 

acres containing noxious 

weeds by at least 10%; reduce the number of 

noxious weed species present. 

 Objective NW-II-O- 1. 

Same as Alternative I. 

 Objective NW-III-O- 1. 

Manage uses and treat noxious weeds such that 

there is no net increase in the number of acres containing noxious 

weeds; reduce the number of noxious weed 

species present. 

 Objective NW-IV-O

Reduce the number 

acres containing nox

weeds by at least 5reduce the number o

noxious weed specipresent. 

No objective stated.  Objective NW-I-O- 2. 

Reduce cover of invasive plants in native 

communities to <5%; 

reduce cover of invasive 

plants in non-native 

perennial and non-native 

understory communities 

to <10%. 

 Objective NW-II-O- 2. 

Reduce cover of invasive plants in native 

communities to <10%; reduce cover of invasive 

plants in non-native 

perennial and non-native 

understory communities 

to <15%. 

 Objective NW-III-O- 2. 

Reduce cover of invasive plants in native 

communities to <5%; reduce cover of invasive 

plants in non-native 

perennial and non-native 

understory communities 

to <5%. 

 Objective NW-IV-O

Same as Alternative 

Resources – Wildland Fire Ecology and Management – Wildland Fire Management (WFM) No goal stated. Goal WFM-CA-G- 1. Fire management strategies would result in firefighter and public safety and protection o

cultural resources, while considering suppression and rehabilitation costs. 

2-255 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

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

Strive to reduce average wildland fire size and number of humancaused fire starts within 

 Objective WFM-II-O- 1. 

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 

 Objective WFM-IV

1. Same as Alternat

 Objective WFM-IV

2. Same as Alternat

WUI. 

 Objective WFM-I-O- 2. 

Reduce acres burned in vegetation types outside WUI where more wildland fires have burned than desired/historic. 

number of acres burned within and outside WUI throughout the planning area. 

Manage the entire planning Critical Suppression Areas Critical Suppression Areas Critical Suppression Areas Critical Suppression Aarea (1,374,000 acres) for would include 481,000 would include 172,000 would include 469,000 would include 594,000 

full suppression. acres: 

 WUI  Bruneau-Jarbidge, 

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

 Key sage-grouse 

habitat 

acres:  WUI 

acres:  WUI  Bruneau-Jarbidge and 

Salmon Falls Creek ACECs 

 Key sage-grouse 

habitat 

acres in Alternative IVand 555,000 acres in 

Alternative IV-B:  WUI  Bruneau-Jarbidge

Inside Desert, JarbFoothills, and LowBruneau Canyon ACECs 

 Key sage-grouse 

habitat 

No similar management Improve water availability Improve water availability Improve water availability Same as Alternative II

action. for fire suppression in high for fire suppression in for fire suppression 

recreational use areas, in native plant communities throughout the planning 

accordance with Idaho and and WUI, in accordance area, in accordance with 

Nevada State Law with Idaho State Law Idaho State Law regarding regarding the appropriation regarding the appropriation the appropriation and use and use of water. and use of water. of water. 

2-256 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

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 or prohibited to reduce risk of wildland fire. 

Same as Alternative II

Resources – Wildland Fire Ecology and Management – FRCC, Fuels, and Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area RehabNo 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. 

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) No objective stated.  Objective FFE-CA-O- 1. Manage plant communities within WUI to reduce Relative Risk Rating as identified i

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-O- 1. 

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-O

Same as Alternative 

2-257 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Fuels Treatments 

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-O- 2. 

Implement fuels treatments to protect Critical Suppression Areas and limit the spread, size, and intensity of wildland fire. 

 Objective FFE-IV-O

Same as Alternative 

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 treatmto reduce fuel loads wiconsideration for 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 ES&BAR treatments; fuel breaks for SRMAs could be used to protect adjacent areas, protect facilities, and protect highuse 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 folldisturbance corridors owould protect restoratior ES&BAR treatment

2-258 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

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 managemenaction. 

Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation (ES&BAR)  Objective FFE-NA-O-  Objective FFE-I-O- 3.  Objective FFE-II-O- 3.  Objective FFE-III-O- 3.  Objective FFE-IV-O

1. Rehabilitate public Rehabilitate and Same as Alternative I. Rehabilitate and Same as Alternative 

lands affected by stabilize areas to help stabilize areas to help 

wildland fires to stabilize soils, promote stabilize soils, promote accomplish multiple use natural recovery, and natural recovery, and objectives and designed establish pre-fire or establish fire-tolerant to reduce fire size. historic vegetation 

communities. 

vegetation communities. 

No similar management action. 

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

and are predicted to be sustainable or if the treatment is determined to be unsuccessful. This guideline would not a

with the treatment objectives. Use seed mixes that would help stabilize soils and achieve objectives in the Upland Vegetation, Riparian Areas an

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 tempor

fences on a case-by-cabasis; however, tempofences would not be allowed in pastures wnative plant communTemporary fences may only be considered whthere are at least 2,000 unburned acres in the pasture. 

2-259 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Resources – Wild Horses (WH) 

Goal WH-NA-G- 1. A viable, healthy population of wild horses will be maintained in accordance with Federal law.  Objective WH-NA-O- 2. 

Provide forage to support a herd of 50 wild horses. 

Goal WH-I-G- 1. The Saylor Creek Wild Horse HMA would be managed for a thriving natural ecological balance.  Objective WH-I-O- 2. 

Manage a reproducing herd of 100 to 200 wild horses. 

Goal WH-II-G- 1. The Saylor Creek Wild Horse Herd Area would be managed for commercial uses.  Objective WH-II-O- 2. 

Manage the Saylor Creek Wild Horse Herd Area as an unpopulated herd area. 

Goal WH-III-G- 1. Same as Alternative I.  Objective WH-III-O- 2. 

Manage a reproducing herd of 200 to 600 wild horses. 

Goal WH-IV-G- 1. Same as Alternative I.  Objective WH-IV-O

Manage a nonreproducing herd to 200 wild horses. 

Resources – Paleontological Resources (PR) No goal stated.  Objective PR-NA-O- 1. 

Protect and manage paleontological sites in major paleontological areas in the northern portion of the planning area. 

Goal PR-CA-G- 1. Identify, manage, and protect paleontological resources for scientific research, educational 

 Objective PR-CA-O- 1. Identify, manage, and protect important paleontological sites. 

Resources – Cultural Resources (CR) No goal stated.  Objective CR-NA-O- 1. 

Protect the cultural values of significant cultural resource complexes through special designation and management. 

Goal CR-CA-G- 1. Identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources and ensure they are available f

future generations.  Objective CR-CA-O- 1. Manage and protect cultural resources according to their potential traditional, scientific

experimental value. 

Goal CR-CA-G- 2. Seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or human-cauconflict with other resource uses by ensuring all authorizations for land use and resource use complies with th

Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, Section 106.  Objective CR-CA-O- 2. Strive to limit the adverse effects of BLM decisions on important cultural resources. 

Resources – Visual Resources (VR) No goal stated. Goal VR-CA-G- 1. Maintain visual resource characteristics and values of public lands according to VRM class

2-260 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

VRM Class Acres I 129,000 II 112,000 III 292,000 IV 841,000 

VRM Class Acres I 130,000 II 181,000 III 119,000 IV 944,000 

VRM Class Acres I 103,000 II 11,000 III 19,000 IV 1,240,000 

VRM Class Acres I 102,800 II 11,000 III 336,000 IV 924,000 

VRM Class AcI 128,II 70,III (IV-A) 366,

(IV-B) 334,

IV (IV-A) 810,

(IV-B) 842,

Resources – Non-Wilderness Study Area Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (WC) No goal stated. Goal WC-CA-G- 1. Maintain wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands as appropriate, considering manage

competing resource demands. 

No objective stated.  Objective WC-I-O- 1. 

Manage non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the western portion of the planning area (39,000 

acres) for their undeveloped character and to provide opportunities for primitive recreational activities and solitude. 

 Objective WC-II-O- 1. 

Non-WSA lands would not be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

 Objective WC-III-O- 1. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Objective WC-IV-O

Manage non-WSA with wilderness characteristics (53,0acres) for their undeveloped characand to provide opportunities for primitive recreationactivities and solitud

Resource Uses – Livestock Grazing (LG) 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. Profor livestock grazing through application of proper grazing management to supporestoration of the resiliency of ecosystem structure and function to reduce fragmentatihabitat for sage-grousand other native speci

2-261 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

 Objective LG-NA-O- 2.  Objective LG-I-O- 1. In  Objective LG-II-O- 1.  Objective LG-III-O- 1.  Objective LG-IV-O

Establish livestock native plant Same as Alternative I. In native plant Same as Alternative 

grazing systems and communities excluding communities including 

practices that recognize Sandberg/non-native the Sandberg/non-native the physiological areas, manage livestock areas, manage livestock requirements of forbs grazing to help maintain grazing to help maintain and shrubs. 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- 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. 

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. 

Objective LG-IV-OIn non-native perencommunities, manalivestock grazing to achieve restoration objectives outlined the Upland Vegetatsection. 

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

Ecology and Management sections. 

Allocate 1,414,000 acres Allocate 1,381,000 acres Allocate 1,406,000 acres Allocate 1,404,000 acres Allocate 1,320,000 acr

as available for livestock as available for livestock as available for livestock as available for livestock in Alternative IV-A an

grazing and 51,000 acres grazing and 84,000 acres grazing and 59,000 acres grazing and 61,000 acres 1,352,000 acres in Alt 

as not available for as not available for as not available for as not available for B as available for lives

livestock grazing. livestock grazing. livestock grazing. livestock grazing. grazing and 145,000 a

in Alternative IV-A an113,000 acres in Alternative IV-B as noavailable for livestock grazing. 

2-262 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

All areas not available to Areas not available to Areas not available to Same as Alternative II. Areas not available to 

livestock grazing in this livestock grazing in livestock grazing in livestock grazing in alternative are common to addition to those common addition to those common addition to those commall alternatives. to all alternatives include to all alternatives include to all alternatives inclu

portions of the Middle Wildlife Tracts and bull trout streams, the Snake ACEC, Wildlife reference areas. Inside Desert ACEC, Tracts, reference areas, and Wildlife Tracts, and areas open to cross-country reference areas. motorized vehicle use. 

Continue allocating Allocate vegetation Allocate vegetation Allocate vegetation Allocate vegetation approximately 200,000 production to livestock as production to livestock as production to livestock as production to livestock AUMs for livestock. follows: 

 25-35% of native 

follows:  40-50% of native 

follows:  35-45% of native 

follows:  15-25% of native 

As the plan is perennial grass perennial grass perennial grass perennial grass implemented, between production production production production 160,000 and 260,000  30-40% of non-native  50-60% of non-native  40-50% of non-native  20-30% of non-na

AUMs could be issued for perennial grass perennial grass perennial grass perennial grass livestock depending on production production production production implementation of treatments described in the Upland Vegetation section. 

 20-30% of annual 

grass production 

 8-11% of shrub and 

 70-80% of annual 

grass production 

 12-16% of shrub and 

 40-50% of annual 

grass production 

 11-14% of shrub and 

 0% of annual gra

production 

 0% of shrub and f

forb production forb production forb production production 

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 objec

BLM policy Grazing permit renewal following the ROD would follow the process outlined in Appendix L. Allotment-specific 

management, including grazing use indicators and grazing use criteria, and adjustments to an allotment’s Selectivmade at that time. Implement drought management guidelines during periods of drought to maintain or achieve long-term resource p

Manage livestock grazing to follow BLM guidelines for managing sage-grouse habitat (e.g., 2006 Conservation PIdaho, Owyhee County and Jarbidge Local Working Group Sage-grouse Plans). 

2-263 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

2-264 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Livestock season of use would be adjusted in 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 may allowed in big game wrange in native shrublacommunities during thwinter. Adjust livestock grazinseasons of use would noverlap bighorn sheep breeding and winter periods in pastures thacontain bighorn sheep habitat. 

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 Point ACEC, pastures >50% big game winter range, or pastures with >25% native communi

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-O

Manage range infrastructure at levappropriate to the amount of livestock to provide for efficimanagement of livestock grazing allotments and suppresource objectives. 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

2-265 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

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 case-bycase basis to promote livestock distribution or meet resource objectives. 

Consider installing or constructing new range infrastructure on a case-bycase 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 developmen

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

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

Resource Uses – Recreation (REC) No goal stated. Goal REC-CA-G- 1. Provide a variety of dispersed and developed recreational opportunities and experiences fo

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

 Objective REC-NA-O1. 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-O- 1. 

Manage 55,800 acres as SRMAs and 1,317,700 acres as an ERMA. 

 Objective REC-IV-

Manage 204,000 acas SRMAs and 1,169,570 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 

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 

Same as Alternative II
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

2-266 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

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

opportunities on a series of designated routes. 

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 managemen

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 managemen

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. 

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 managemenaction. 

No similar management action. 

The Salmon Falls Reservoir SRMA (5,000 acres) would consist of three RMZs:  Antelope Bay RMZ 

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

 Su

2-267 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

(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. 

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. Salmon Falls Creek is managed as a Wilderness Study Area and, in Alternatives I and III, as an ACEC as well. 

Resource Uses – Transportation and Travel (TR) No goal stated. Goal TR-CA-G- 1. Manage and provide for motorized, non-motorized, and non-mechanized access that would 

use. 

No objective stated.  Objective TR-I-O- 1. 

Provide a transportation and travel system that facilitates multiple use, with an emphasis on recreational use, livestock grazing, and minimizing impacts to big game habitats. 

 Objective TR-II-O- 1. 

Provide a transportation and travel system to facilitate multiple use, with an emphasis on commercial use and minimizing impacts on native vegetation. 

 Objective TR-III-O- 1. 

A transportation and travel system would provide for multiple use, with an emphasis on wildland fire prevention and suppression activities. 

 Objective TR-IV-O

Provide a transportaand travel system to facilitate multiple uand resource protecwith an emphasis omeeting native vegetation and spestatus species goals

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 II
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

2-268 

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, non-WSA 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 manafor 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 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 II

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 remaindethe planning area (1,223,000 acres) woulimited to designated routes. Until the CTTMcompleted, travel woulimited to existing rou

No similar management action. 

Complete a Comprehensive Transportation and Travel Management Plan (CTTMP) within 5 years of the signing 

CTTMP would be developed through a public process to determine the transportation and travel system for the pl

determine the routes and trails to be designated, modified, or closed as well as the maintenance level, modes of trarestrictions for designated routes. During the CTTMP process, additional data needs and a strategy to collect infor

No similar management action. 

The focus for transportation and travel planning would be:  Balance needs for 

access with resource objectives on 316,000 

acres 

 Facilitate motorized 

recreation on 41,000 acres 

 Balance livestock 

The focus for transportation and travel planning would be:  Facilitate commercial 

uses while mitigating resource impacts on 1,161,000 acres 

 Facilitate livestock 

grazing management while mitigating resource impacts on 

The focus for transportation and travel planning would be:  Improve access and 

facilitate fire suppression and prevention on 1,339,000 acres 

 Facilitate motorized 

recreation on 34,000 acres 

The focus for transportation and travplanning would be:  Accommodate 

restoration activitiwhile providing aon 322,666 acres 

 Facilitate motoriz

recreation on 34,0acres 

 Increase core habi
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

2-269 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

grazing management with habitat restoration on 667,000 acres 

 Increase core habitat 

size for mule deer and provide for nonmotorized recreation on 350,000 acres 

213,000 acres size for sage-grou

and big game and accommodate restoration activitiwhile providing aon 804,000 acres 

 Increase core habi

size for sage-grouand big game and provide for nonmotorized recreation 213,000 acres 

Resource Uses – Land Use Authorizations (LA) No goal stated. Goal LA-CA-G- 1. Public needs for land use authorizations would be met with consideration for other resource 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-O

Same as Alternative 

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

Glenns Ferry and Pasadena Valley 

 Cultural resource 

The following areas would be ROW avoidance areas (896,000 acres):  Areas within USAF 

MOAs 

 Oregon NHT 

protective corridor 

 Eligible, suitable, and 

The following areas would be ROW avoidance areas (878,000 acres):  Areas within USAF 

MOAs 

 Oregon NHT 

protective corridor 

 Eligible, suitable, and 

The following areas would be ROW avoidance areas (880,000 acres):  Areas within USAF 

MOAs 

 Oregon NHT 

protective corridor 

 Eligible, suitable, and 

The following areas wbe ROW avoidance ar(896,000 acres):  Areas within USA

MOAs 

 Oregon NHT 

protective corrido

 Eligible, suitable, 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

2-270 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 



complexes Dove Springs 

All rutted segments of Oregon Trail Recommended suitable wilderness area Bruneau-Jarbidge and Sand Point ACECs Suitable WSR corridors Salmon Falls Creek Canyon. 



designated WSR corridors Non-WSA lands managed for their wilderness characteristics Bruneau-Jarbidge and Salmon Falls Creek ACECs 

designated WSR corridors 



designated WSR corridors Bruneau-Jarbidge and Salmon Falls Creek ACECs 



designated WSR corridors Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

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 w

be ROW exclusion are(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 Wind farms could be Wind farms can be Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. 

action. considered in areas with 

annual or non-native vegetation communities, consistent with stipulations 

for ROW avoidance areas and outside ROW 

exclusion areas. 

considered throughout the planning area, consistent with stipulations for ROW avoidance areas and outside ROW exclusion areas. 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

2-271 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

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 s

testing and monitoring wind energy developmfrom occupied and suihabitat for special statuspecies, wildlife habitaand cultural resources where their direct and indirect adverse effectcannot be mitigated. 

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 sage-grouse leks. 

Locate new transmissiand phone lines, communications towermeteorological towerswind turbines >5 milefrom active sage-grousleks. 

Resource Uses – Land Tenure (LT) No goal stated.  Objective LT-NA-O- 1. 

Retain public lands in Federal ownership, except those lands specifically identified in the plan or amendment as transfer areas. 

Goal LT-CA-G- 1. Manage land tenure to provide for public ownership of lands with high resource and multip

management efficiency.  Objective LT-CA-O- 1. Improve BLM's ability to manage the land base and resource values, and help meet res

tenure adjustments. 

Specific parcels were identified for disposal. Acres are crosswalked to Zones 1, 2, and 3 for comparison. 

Lands available for disposal through land tenure adjustment would follow a three-zone system:  Zone 1: Lands zoned for retention that would not be available for disposal.  Zone 2: Lands zoned for consolidation in the planning area that can be exchanged for other lands in Zones 1 a

 Zone 3: Lands zoned for sale, exchange for lands in Zones 1 or 2 or lands outside the planning area, or R&PP 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

2-272 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Zone Acres 

1 1,302,000 

2 3,000 

3 2,000 

Zone Acres 

1 1,109,000 

2 244,000 

3 20,000 

Zone Acres 

1 953,000 

2 374,000 

3 46,000 

Zone Acres 

1 1,109,000 

2 244,000 

3 20,000 

Zone Acres 

1 1,129,

2 229,

3 16,

Resource Uses – Minerals – Leasable Minerals (LE) 

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

 Objective LE-NA-O- 1. 

Make 1,306,844 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-O

Same as Alternative 

All mineral leases would be subject to laws, regulations, and formal orders, the terms and conditions of the standaESA Section 7 Consultation and Cultural Resource Protection; allocations below outline what, if any, additional c

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 acre

Federal mineral estate Alternative IV-A and 648,000 acres in 

Alternative IV-B as opto mineral leasing with additional constraints. 

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 sharp-tailed grouse habitats, raptor winter and nesting 

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 

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 acre

Federal mineral estate Alternative IV-A and 604,000 acres in 

Alternative IV-B as opto mineral leasing, subto moderate constraint Seasonal restrictio

big game winter rkey sage-grouse habitat, and bull tr
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

2-273 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

habitat  Controlled surface use 

restriction in RCAs 

and redband trout habitat 

 Controlled surface 

restriction in RCA

Allocate 284,000 acres as 

open to mineral leasing, subject to major constraints (NSO):  Oregon Trail  Sand Point ACEC and 

other paleontological sites and cultural resource complexes 

 WSAs, BruneauJarbidge 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 acres 

Federal mineral estate Alternative IV-A and 32,000 acres in AlternIV-B as open to minerleasing, subject to majconstraints (NSO):  The Oregon NHT 

protective corrido

 The Kelton and T

Freight Road protective corrido

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, BruneauJarbidge, Middle Snake, Salmon Falls Creek, and Sand Point 

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 acre

Federal mineral estate Alternative IV-A and 211,000 acres in Alternative IV-B as clto mineral leasing in thfollowing areas:  WSAs  Eligible, suitable, 

designated WSRsInside Desert 

 Non-WSA lands 

managed for their wilderness characteristics 

 Lower Bruneau 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

2-274 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

ACECs Canyon, BruneauJarbidge, and San

Point ACECs 

Resource Uses – Minerals – Salable Minerals (SA) No goal stated. Goal SA-CA-G- 1. Provide salable mineral development opportunities where they are compatible with other res

 Objective SA-NA-O- 1. 

Manage 697 acres in MUAs 4, 6, 7, and 12 for material use sites. 

 Objective SA-I-O- 1. 

Provide salable minerals needed for community and economic purposes and facilitate their reasonable, economical, and environmentally sound development where available and compatible with resource objectives. 

 Objective SA-II-O- 1. 

Same as Alternative I. 

 Objective SA-III-O- 1. 

Provide salable minerals needed for community and economic purposes and facilitate their reasonable, economical, and environmentally sound development where available and compatible with resource and wildland fire prevention and suppression objectives. 

 Objective SA-IV-O

Same as Alternative 

Allocate 697 acres of Federal mineral estate as open to salable mineral development. 

Allocate 1,308,000 acres of Federal mineral estate as open to salable mineral development, subject to site-specific NEPA analysis, stipulations, and 43 CFR 3600 regulations. 

Allocate 1,401,000 acres of Federal mineral estate as open to salable mineral development, subject to site-specific NEPA analysis, stipulations, and 43 CFR 3600 regulations. 

Allocate 1,351,000 acres of Federal mineral estate as open to salable mineral development, subject to site-specific NEPA analysis, stipulations, and 43 CFR 3600 regulations. 

Allocate 1,220,000 acrof Federal mineral estaAlternative IV-A, 1,252,000 acres in Alternative IV-B as opto salable mineral development, subject tsite-specific NEPA analysis, stipulations, a43 CFR 3600 regulatio

No similar management action. 

Allocate 187,000 acres of 

Federal mineral estate as closed to salable mineral development. 

Allocate 94,000 acres of 

Federal mineral estate as closed to salable mineral development. 

Allocate 144,000 acres of 

Federal mineral estate as closed to salable mineral development. 

Allocate 275,000 acre

Federal mineral estate Alternative IV-A, 243acres in Alternative IVas closed to salable midevelopment. 

Resource Uses – Minerals – Locatable Minerals (LO) No goal stated.  Objective LO-NA-O- 1. 

Goal LO-CA-G- 1. Locatable mineral development would not cause unnecessary and undue degradation of res
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

2-275 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Make 1,395,000 acres of Federal mineral estate available for locatable minerals. 

 Objective LO-CA-O- 1. Facilitate reasonable, economical, and environmentally sound exploration and develop

The planning area would be available for location of mining claims unless withdrawn. Recommend 218,000 acres of Federal mineral estate for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

Recommend 117,000 acres 

of Federal mineral estate 

for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

Recommend 46,000 acres of Federal mineral estate 

for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

Recommend 92,000 acres of Federal mineral estate for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

Recommend 148,000 aof Federal mineral estafor withdrawal from mineral entry. 

Special Designations – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

No goal stated. Goal ACEC-CA-G- 1. ACECs will be managed to protect the important biological, cultural, scenic, and historic 

for relevance and importance. 

 Objective ACEC-NA-O1. Protect the cultural 

and scenic values of the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC (85,000 acres). 

 Objective ACEC-NA-O2. Protect and enhance 

the Arch Canyon area, 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-O3. Protect the Salmon 

Falls Creek Canyon 

(2,700 acres) for its natural and scenic values through ACEC designation and management. 

 Objective ACEC-NA-O4. Manage the Sand 

 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 

their fish and botanical values. 

 Objective ACEC-I-O- 4. 

Manage the lands within the Salmon Falls Creek 

ACEC (2,700 acres) to 

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 

protect their historic, cultural, paleontological, 

and geologic values. 

 Objective ACEC-IV

1. Manage the lands within the BruneauJarbidge ACEC to protect their culturascenic, fish, and botanical values (123,000 acres). 

 Objective ACEC-IV

2. Manage the lands within the Inside DeACEC (Alternative A: 73,000 acres; 

Alternative IV-B: 41,000 acres) to protheir botanical value

 Objective ACEC-IV

3. Manage the lands within the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC (AA: 136,000 acres) t

protect their culturafish, wildlife, and botanical values. 

 Objective ACEC-IV
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

2-276 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

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. 

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. 

4. Manage the lands within the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC (Alternative IV-B: 66,000 acres) to protheir cultural, wildliand botanical value

 Objective ACEC-IV

5. Manage the lands within the Lower Bruneau Canyon AC(1,100 acres) to protheir aquatic and botanical resources. 

 Objective ACEC-IV

6. Manage the lands within the Sand PoiACEC (950 acres) 

protect their historiccultural, paleontoloand geologic values

Special Designations – National Historic Trails (NHT) Goal NHT-NA-O- 1. Protect and manage the Oregon NHT to preserve all remaining ruts and trail features; develop an interpretive marker program, signing, and facilities to serve trail users; and nominate to the National Register. 

Goal NHT-CA-G- 1. The Oregon NHT corridor would be managed to preserve and protect the historic, scenic, 

with the trail.  Objective NHT-CA-O- 1. Protect, preserve, and provide opportunities to experience the historic, scenic, and re

NHT. 

Special Designations – Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) Goal WSR-NA-G- 1. Protect the scenic and recreational values of the Bruneau and Jarbidge 

Goal WSR-CA-G- 1. Maintain or enhance the ORVs, free-flowing character, water quality, and tentative classif

and eligible WSR segments. 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Su

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Rivers through special designation and management. Special Designations – Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) Goal WSA-NA-G- 1 Manage 19,360 acres for wilderness in the planning area. 

Goal WSA-CA-G- 1. Manage the Jarbidge River WSA, Lower Salmon Falls Creek WSA, and Bruneau River-S

IMP until designated as wilderness or released by Congress. 

Areas determined by Congress to be nonsuitable for wilderness designation would be managed for other purposes 

If not otherwise directed by legislation, lands released from wilderness study would not be managed for their wilderness characteristics, but instead would be managed according to direction for adjacent non-wilderness lands. 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. If not otherwise directe

legislation, lands releafrom wilderness study would be managed for wilderness characteristaccording to the directin the Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics section

Social and Economic Features – Social and Economic Conditions (SE) No goal stated. No similar objective. 

Goal SE-CA-G- 1. Management of the resources and uses of public lands would provide social and economic b

visitors, and future generations.  Objective SE-CA-O- 1. Provide opportunities for economic and social benefit while maintaining natural and cu

Social and Economic Features – Hazardous Materials (HM) No goal stated. No objective stated. 

Goal HM-CA-G- 1. Ensure hazardous materials concerns on public lands remain a high priority.  Objective HM-CA-O- 1. Mitigate issues related to hazardous materials. 

Social and Economic Features – Interpretation, Outreach, and Environmental Education (IOE) No goal stated. Goal IOE-CA-G- 1. Working with partners, provide interpretation, outreach, and environmental education to h

historic features of the planning area and to further resource protection and public safety. 

2-277 
Chapter 2: Summary Tables Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 

2.8.2. Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Table 2- 6 provides a summary of the impacts on the human and natural environment in terms of the 

consequences that are proposed to occur from implementing the alternatives presented in Chapter 2; 

differences between the two sub-alternatives of Alternative IV (the Preferred Alternative) are described 

only where they occur. The effects of the various management actions in each alternative are discussed 

in detail in the environmental consequences section presented in Chapter 4. 

Differences between the wording of environmental consequences in the main text of Chapter 4 and the 

wording in the summary table should not be construed to confine or redefine the analysis of impacts. 

Wording was modified to be more concise in the summary table. Sections are summarized in the order in 

which they appear in Chapter 4. 

August 2010 2-278 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Summary Compariso

Table 2- 6. Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Impacts to Tribal Rights and Interests 

The No Action Alternative would result in the second most impacts to tribal rights and interests.  Highest impact to the 

natural resource base used by the tribes 

 Second highest impact 

to the physical integrity of cultural resources 

 Second highest risk to 

the future exercise of treaty rights and tribal interests from potential disposal of public land 

Alternative I would result in the third fewest impacts to tribal rights and interests.  Second lowest impact 

to the natural resource base used by the tribes 

 Third lowest impact to 

the physical integrity of cultural resources 

 Third lowest risk to 

the future exercise of treaty rights and tribal interests from potential disposal of public land 

Alternative II would result in more impacts to tribal rights and interests than any of the alternatives.  Highest impact to the 

natural resource base used by the tribes 

 Highest impact on the 

physical integrity of cultural resources 

 Highest risk to the 

future exercise of treaty rights and tribal interests from potential disposal of public land 

Alternative III would result in the third most impacts to tribal rights and interests.  Second highest impact 

to the natural resource base used by the tribes 

 Third highest impact 

to the physical integrity of cultural resources 

 Third lowest risk to 

the future exercise of treaty rights and tribal interests from potential disposal of public land 

Alternative IV would rin the second fewest impacts to tribal rights interests.  Lowest impact to 

natural resource bused by the tribes 

 Second lowest im

to the physical integrity of culturresources 

 Second lowest risk 

the future exercise treaty rights and trinterests from potedisposal of public 

Impacts to Air and Atmospheric Values Impacts to Air Quality The No Action Alternative would have the highest impact to air quality.  Maintains the current 

frequency of large fires 

 Maintains current 

levels of cross-country motorized vehicle use 

 No emissions of PM2.5 

and PM10 expected 

from the use of prescribed fire 

Alternative I would have the least impact to air quality.  Decreases frequency 

of large fire 

 Reduces acres open to 

cross-country motorized vehicle use 

 No emissions of PM2.5 

and PM10 expected 

from the use of prescribed fire 

Alternative II would have the second highest impact to air quality.  Maintains the current 

frequency of large fires 

 Eliminates acres open 

to cross-country motorized vehicle use 

 Approximately 2,000 

tons of PM2.5 and 

2,000 tons of PM10 

produced by prescribed fires over the life of the plan 

Alternative III would have the third highest impact to air quality.  Decreases frequency 

of large fires 

 Reduces acres open to 

cross-country motorized vehicle use 

 Creates and maintains 

unvegetated fuel breaks 

 Approximately 2,000 

tons of PM2.5 and 

2,000 tons of PM10 

produced by prescribed fires over the life of the plan 

Alternative IV would hthe second lowest impto air quality.  Largest decrease i

frequency of large fires 

 Reduces acres ope

cross-country motorized vehicle 

 Approximately 3,

tons of PM2.5 and 

4,000 tons of PM1

produced by prescribed fires ovthe life of the plan 

2-279 
No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Impacts to Climate Change 

Emissions of CH4 in Tg CO2 equivalents per year through enteric fermentation are displayed below: 

0.03-0.05 Tg per year 0.04-0.06 Tg per year 0.08-0.10 Tg per year 0.06-0.08 Tg per year 0.02-0.03 Tg per year 

Impacts to Geologic Features The No Action Alternative ranks fifth for maintaining geologic features, due to availability to salable mineral development and lack of management to maintain naturalness in areas with geologic features. 

Alternative I ranks third for maintaining geologic features, due to leasable and salable mineral closures, recommendations for withdrawal from mineral entry, and complementary management for ACECs and naturalness in areas with geologic features. 

Alternative II ranks last for maintaining geologic features, due to availability for leasable, salable, and locatable mineral development and lack of complementary management for ACECs or naturalness in areas with geologic features. 

Alternative III ranks fourth for maintaining geologic features, due to availability for leasable, salable, and locatable mineral development but presence of complementary management through ACEC designations in areas with geologic features. 

Alternative IV ranks fifor maintaining geologfeatures, due to leasaband salable mineral closures, recommendafor withdrawal from mineral entry, and highamount of complemenmanagement for ACECand naturalness in areawith geologic features

Impacts to Soil Resources The No Action Alternative would do the least to reduce impacts to soil resources. 

Alternative I ranks fourth for reducing impacts to soil resources. 

Alternative II ranks sixth for reducing impacts to soil resources. 

Alternative III ranks fifth for reducing impacts to soil resources. 

Alternative IV-A woulthe most to reduce impto soil resources. Alternative IV-B rates second due to the smalgeographic area affect

The No Action Alternative lacks specific actions that would be incorporated at as design features, stipulations, or closures to manage for soils, and particularly soils with higher hazard ratings for water and wind erosion. 

Management actions tend to moderate impacts to soil resources while allowing for multiple uses. Alternative I would tend to maintain current conditions with some potential for improvement on soil resource conditions over the long term. 

Higher livestock grazing allocations and amounts of livestock facilities would tend to reduce cover and would compact soils in facility locations. Impacts associated with roads would tend to increase erosion potential; density of roads would increase the proportion of soils compacted by use. 

While less fire on the landscape would reduce impacts to soils, Alternative III would increase short- and longterm impacts from roads, fire suppression facilities, creation and maintenance of fuel breaks and fireresistant plant communities, and use of livestock grazing to reduce fuels. 

Both sub-alternatives would reduce soil impthrough upland vegetatreatments to restore nshrubland communitiefire management priorthat protect existing anrestored native shrublacommunities, reductiolivestock grazing allocations and facilitiand limits on other use

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary Compariso

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary Compariso

2-280 
2-281 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Impacts to Water Resources 

The No Action Alternative would result in the fewest miles of water quality impaired stream achieving State water quality standards. The No Action Alternative would have the highest risk to water resources and longest recovery time of degraded watershed conditions. 

Alternative I is the third most likely to attain riparian objectives and State water quality standards in the life of the plan. 

Alternative II is the fifth most likely to attain State 

water quality standards in the life of the plan. 

Alternative II would have the most resource uses and fewest miles at PFC. 

Alternative III is the fourth most likely to attain riparian objectives and State water quality standards 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 has grepotential to achieve Stwater quality standardall alternatives. Active restoration is more likefacilitate the achievemof State water quality standards within the lithe plan than passive restoration. 

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 P

The ARMS does not apply. The ARMS applies and would mitigate impacts from authorized and allowed uses. 

Impacts to Upland Vegetation 

Acres of VSGs 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 7,000 Understory Non-Native 40,000 Understory Non-Native 34,000 Understory Non-Native 64,000 Understory Non-Native 7,

Understory 

Native 424,000 Grassland Native 211,000 Grassland Native 424,000 Grassland Native 230,000 Grassland Native 424,

Grassland 

Native 367,000 Shrubland Native 715,000 Shrubland Native 388,000 Shrubland Native 568,000 Shrubland Native 367,

Shrubland 

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,

Uncharac- 549,000 teristic Uncharac- 414,000 teristic Uncharac- 528,000 teristic Uncharac- teristic 532,000 Uncharac- teristic 331,

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Summary Compariso

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Summary Compariso
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary Compariso

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. 

Overall fire management priorities would promote protection of existing and restored native shrubland communities; however, suppression priorities would likely result in continued loss of native shrublands. 

Overall 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. 

Overall 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. 

Overall fire managemepriorities would promothe protection of existiand restored native shrubland communitieSuppression 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

2-282 
2-283 

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

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 communities, and introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

While cross-country motorized vehicle use and route density would decrease compared to the No Action Alternative, disturbance associated with fuel breaks and livestock management would be similar to the No Action Alternative or slightly increased. This would result in localized degradation of plant communities that could 

expand. 

While cross-country motorized vehicle use would decrease compared to the No Action Alternative, increased allocations for livestock grazing as well as travel 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. 

While cross-country motorized vehicle use would decrease, route density would remain 

similar to the No Action Alternative. Disturbance associated with fuel breaks 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. 

Cross-country motorizvehicle use, route densdisturbance associated fuel breaks and livestomanagement would be reduced compared to tNo Action Alternative Alternatives I, II, and IThis would reduce the potential for localized degradation of plant communities and expansion of disturbed areas. 

Impacts to Riparian Areas and Wetlands 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 P

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 avail

for authorized uses and wildland fire infrastrucActive restoration is mlikely to achieve restoration objectives ain a shorter timeframe passive restoration. 

Impacts to Fish Impacts to fish would be the same as described for special status fish and aquatic invertebrates and riparian areas and wetlands. Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Summary Compariso
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary Compariso

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Impacts to Wildlife 

The No Action Alternative would restore little habitat for wildlife in the sagebrush steppe and other guilds, but would maintain the second highest amount of habitat for grassland guild wildlife. 

Alternative I would restore 300,000 acres of habitat for wildlife in the sagebrush steppe and other guilds and would have the third largest reduction in the amount of habitat for grassland guild wildlife. 

Alternative II would restore no habitat for wildlife in the sagebrush steppe and other guilds, but would maintain the largest amount of habitat for grassland guild wildlife. 

Alternative III would restore 185,000 acres of habitat for wildlife in the sagebrush steppe and other guilds and would maintain the third highest amount of habitat for grassland guild wildlife. 

Alternative IV would restore 410,000 acres habitat for wildlife in tsagebrush steppe and oguilds and would have largest reduction in the amount of habitat for grassland guild wildlif

The No Action Alternative would provide the third highest amount of residual cover for wildlife, as it would make the fewest acres unavailable for livestock grazing and allocate the third lowest amount of vegetation for livestock. 

Alternative I would provide the third lowest amount of residual cover for wildlife, as it would make the fourth smallest acreage unavailable for livestock grazing and allocate the third highest amount of vegetation for livestock. 

Alternative II would provide the least residual cover for wildlife, as it would make the second smallest acreage unavailable for to livestock grazing and allocate the highest amount of vegetation for livestock. 

Alternative III would provide the second lowest amount of residual cover for wildlife, as it would make the third smallest acreage unavailable for livestock grazing and allocate the second highest amount of vegetation for livestock. 

Alternative IV would provide the second higamount of residual covfor wildlife, as it woulmake the second largeacreage unavailable folivestock grazing and allocate the second lowamount of vegetation flivestock. 

The No Action Alternative Alternative I would have Alternative II would have Alternative III would have Alternative IV would h

would decrease habitat the third lowest impact to the second largest decrease the third largest decrease in the second lowest imp

patch size the most of all habitat patch size. This in habitat patch size due to habitat patch size due to to habitat patch size. W

alternatives, due to the alternative would have the having the second largest having the third highest the amount of habitat 

highest increase in new third lowest amount of new amount of infrastructure amount of new roads and restoration would gene

routes and infrastructure. roads and infrastructure, 

which partially offsets gains in habitat patch size due to restoration. New infrastructure would be encouraged to be located in existing disturbance areas. 

and allowing new roads and new infrastructure to be constructed in areas that are currently undisturbed. 

other infrastructure, as well as the construction of unvegetated fuel breaks. These impacts would be partially offset by locating new infrastructure in existing disturbance areas. 

increase patch size, thegains would be offset bhaving more new roadinfrastructure than Alternative V. 

2-284 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Summary Compariso

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Impacts to Special Status Species Impacts to Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates 

The No Action Alternative would result in the least improvement in habitat 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 in the life of the plan. Increased commercial uses, combined with fewer miles achieving PFC and habitat condition objectives, would result in the most miles of special status aquatic species habitat in a reduced condition. 

Alternative III is fourth most likely to attain habitat condition and riparian objectives in the life of the plan. The attainment of the riparian and habitat condition objectives is less likely due to the increased resource uses, in addition to the enhanced wildland fire suppression infrastructure. 

Alternative IV is the mlikely to attain habitat condition and riparian objectives in the life oplan. Active restoratiomore likely to achieve restoration objectives ain a shorter timeframe passive restoration. 

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 P

The ARMS does not apply. The ARMS applies and would mitigate impacts from authorized and allowed uses. 

Impacts to Special Status Wildlife The No Action Alternative Alternative I would restore Alternative II would Alternative III would Alternative IV would 

allows little restoration of third highest amount of restore the smallest amount restore third smallest restore the highest amo

habitat for sage-grouse and habitat for sage-grouse and of habitat for sage-grouse amount of habitat for sage of habitat for sage-gro

other special status other special status and other special status grouse and other special and other special statu

sagebrush obligates. sagebrush obligates. sagebrush obligates. status sagebrush obligates. sagebrush obligates. 

This alternative would provide the third highest amount of residual cover for sage-grouse and other special status sagebrush obligates. 

This alternative would provide the third lowest amount of residual cover for sage-grouse and other special status sagebrush obligates. 

This alternative would provide the least residual cover for sage-grouse and other special status sagebrush obligates 

This alternative would provide the second lowest amount of residual cover for sage-grouse and other special status sagebrush obligates. 

This alternative would provide the second higamount of residual covfor sage-grouse and otspecial status sagebrusobligates. 

The No Action Alternative is expected to result in the most new roads and infrastructure in habitat for sage-grouse and other special status sagebrush obligates. 

Alternative I is expected to result in the third lowest amount of new roads and infrastructure in habitat for sage-grouse and other special status sagebrush obligates. 

Alternative II is expected to result in second highest amount of new roads and infrastructure in habitat for sage-grouse and other special status sagebrush obligates. 

Alternative III is expected to result in the third highest amount of new roads and infrastructure in sagegrouse and other special status sagebrush obligates. 

Alternative IV is expeto result in the second lowest amount of new roads and infrastructursage-grouse and other special status sagebrusobligates 

2-285 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary Compariso

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

The No Action Alternative would restore the smallest amount of habitat for spotted frogs and other special status riparian guild wildlife. 

Alternative I would restore the second highest amount of habitat for spotted frogs and other special status riparian guild wildlife. 

Same as the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative III would restore highest amount of habitat for spotted frogs and other special status riparian guild wildlife. 

Same as Alternative II

Impacts to Special Status Plants The No Action Alternative ranks sixth for management of special status plants and their habitats as it would do little to restore potential habitat. 

Alternative I ranks fourth for management of special status plants, due primarily to intermediate levels of habitat restoration and management that would reduce fire-related impacts to special status plants and their habitats and prevent impacts due to travel. 

Alternative II would do the least to manage for special status plants and their habitats, due to low levels of habitat restoration combined with the highest amount and intensity of livestock use and impacts due to route densities. Critical fire suppression priorities would do little to protect special status plants and their habitats. 

Alternative III ranks fifth for management of special status plants and their habitats due primarily to relatively high levels of habitat fragmentation from actions intended to reduce large wildland fires. Vegetated and unvegetated fuel breaks, combined with increased fire suppression infrastructure, would break up contiguous blocks of special status plant habitats. Critical fire suppression priorities do not fully protect occupied and potential habitats for special status plants. 

Alternative IV ranks fiin maintaining existing special status plant populations and maintaining or increasoccupied and potential habitats due primarily actions that actively rehabitats. Management included in Alternative to reduce fire-related impacts to special statuplants and their habitaand to prevent impacts to travel. 

The No Action Alternative contains low levels of management for protection of existing special status plant populations. This includes indirect impacts from special management in the Bruneau-Jarbidge River ACEC. 

ACEC management for special status plants and their habitats would only occur along the Bruneau, Jarbidge, Middle Snake, and Salmon Falls Creek drainages; populations in the interior of the planning area would not have elevated levels of management. 

Under Alternative II there would be no ACEC designations and, therefore, no special management for special status plants and their habitats. 

ACEC designations would only manage special status plants and habitats along the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers, in an area 2/3 the size under Alternative I; populations of special status plants throughout most of the planning area would not have elevated levels of management. 

ACEC designations unAlternative IV-A woulprovide management fspecial status plants antheir habitats throughothe planning area. Alternative IV-B was rthird due to reduced acreages for special management associatewith ACECs. 

2-286 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Summary Compariso

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Impacts to Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 

The No Action Alternative ranks sixth in reducing potential for the introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

Alternative I ranks fourth for reducing the potential for introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

Alternative II would do the least to reduce the potential for introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

Alternative III ranks fifth for reducing the potential for introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

Alternative IV-A does most to reduce the potential for introductiand spread of noxious weeds and invasive plaAlternative IV-B rates second due to the smalgeographic area affect

The No Action Alternative would do little to change current trends for noxious weeds and invasive plants through vegetation treatments, wildland fire management, travel management, or land use authorizations. 

Management actions tend to reduce disturbance to vegetation and soil resources while allowing for multiple uses. Alternative I would tend to maintain current conditions with some potential for reduction of introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants over the long-term. 

Higher livestock grazing allocations as well as increased amounts of livestock facilities would tend to reduce vegetation cover and disrupt soils in facility locations. Impacts associated with density of roads would increase potential for introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

While less fire on the landscape would reduce potential for noxious weed and invasive plant introduction and spread, the alternative would increase short- and longterm impacts resulting from roads, fire suppression facilities, creation and maintenance of fire breaks, and use of livestock grazing to reduce fuels. 

Both sub-alternatives would reduce long-term potential for noxious wand invasive plant introduction and spreathrough upland vegetatreatments to restore nshrubland communitiefire management priorthat protect native shrubland communitiereductions in livestock grazing allocations and facilities, and limits on other uses. 

2-287 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary Compariso

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Impacts to Wildland Fire Ecology and Management – Wildland Fire Management 

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 In the short term, fire size In the short term, fire size In the short term, fire size In the short term, fire stoward large fires would would decrease through would decrease through would decrease through would continue to incrcontinue. Few suppression suppression actions, suppression and livestock suppression actions and until FRCC is improveactions are identified to although to a lesser degree grazing actions. This livestock grazing actions. due to suppression actireduce fire size, and no than Alternatives II and III. would be augmented by This would be augmented reducing fire size least treatments would move This would be offset by treatments on 5% of the by treatments on 6% of the all the alternatives and vegetation toward fuels treatments on only 3% of planning area moving planning area moving reduced levels of liveswith a lower rate of spread. the planning area moving 

vegetation toward fuels with a lower rate of spread. 

vegetation toward fuels with a lower rate of spread. 

vegetation toward fuels with a lower rate of spread. 

grazing. This would be offset by treatments on of the planning area moving vegetation towfuels with a lower rate spread. 

2-288 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Summary Compariso

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Over the long term, fire Over the long term, fire Over the long term, with Over the long term, fire Over the long term, firsize would continue an size would decrease due to no change to FRCC, fire size would continue an size would decrease duupward trend. Vegetation moderate improvement in size would return to an upward trend, although to a major improvement in treatments would not FRCC. Vegetation upward trend. Vegetation lesser degree than the No FRCC. Vegetation improve FRCC, with no treatments would improve treatments and livestock Action Alternative and treatments would imprincrease in acres similar to FRCC on 300,000 acres; grazing would play the Alternative II due to FRCC on 373,000 acreS-Class reference livestock grazing least role in improving marginal improvement in livestock grazing conditions as compared to management is least likely FRCC with no increase in FRCC. Vegetation management would the baseline; livestock to either inhibit or heighten acres similar to S-Class treatments would improve heighten improvement grazing management may improvement in FRCC. reference conditions as FRCC on 180,000 acres; FRCC. Approximately inhibit improvement in Approximately 4,000 acres compared to the baseline. livestock grazing 4,000 acres of fuels FRCC. No treatments are of fuels treatments in WUI Among the alternatives, management would further treatments in WUI woidentified for WUI. would be implemented. Approximately 5,000 acres 

of fuels treatments in WUI would be implemented. 

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

be 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 B: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 2 

VMA C: 

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

VMA D: 

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

VMA A: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 3 

VMA B: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 1 

VMA C: 

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

VMA D: 

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

VMA A: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 3 

VMA B: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 2 

VMA C: 

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

VMA D: 

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

VMA A: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 3 

VMA B: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 2 

VMA C: 

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

VMA D: 

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

VMA A: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 

VMA B: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe 

VMA C: 

Wy. sagebrush steppe Basin big sagebrush Black/low sagebrush 

VMA D: 

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

Impacts to Wild Horses The number of wild horses in the HMA would be reduced to and maintained at 50. 

A reproducing herd of 100 to 200 wild horses would be maintained. 

Wild horses in the HMA would be gathered, and the HMA would be unpopulated. 

A reproducing herd of 200 to 600 horses would be established and maintained. 

Wild horses would be gathered and replaced non-reproducing herd 200. 

2-289 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary Compariso

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

The No Action Alternative Alternative I would have Reducing the wild horse Alternative III would have Alternative IV would h

would have the most the third highest impact to herd to zero would have the second lowest impact the least impact to wild impact to wild horses, as it wild horses, as it would the highest short-term to wild horses, as it would horses, as it would resuwould result in: result in: effects on wild horses result in: in:  The most difficulty in  Some difficulty in during the process of  The least difficulty in  No impacts to the 

maintaining the maintaining the gathering and relocating maintaining the genetic diversity ogenetic diversity of the genetic diversity of the wild horses. In the long genetic diversity of herd herd herd term, genetic diversity of herd  Improvement in fo

 The least improvement  Improvement in forage the herd, forage and water  Improvement in forage availability 

in forage and water availability and stability 

and water availability 

 The smallest reduction 

in disruption to wild 

availability, and disruption to wild horses would no longer be an issue. 

availability 

 Improvement to water 

systems to increase 

 Potential difficulty 

improving water availability due to 

 The most disruption to horses, due to conflict reliability and supply reduced need for 

wild horses due to with livestock grazing of water livestock water in conflict with human and vegetation  Reduced disruption to HMA 

activity and treatments wild horses, due to  Highest overall 

infrastructure fewer conflicts with 

motorized recreation, removal of fences in the HMA, and the fewest vegetation treatments of the action alternatives, even though conflicts with livestock grazing would remain high 

reduction in disrupto wild horses, dureductions in humactivity and uses a

realignment of fenin the HMA, even though conflicts wvegetation treatmemay be high 

2-290 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Summary Compariso

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Impacts to Paleontological Resources 

The No Action Alternative would have the second highest potential to affect the integrity of paleontological resources, as there would be:  The second most PFY 

Class 5 acres vulnerable to impacts from mineral, utility, and wind energy development and the most acres vulnerable to transportationrelated impacts 

 More Class 5 acres 

retained in Federal ownership 

 Some special 

management for maintaining the integrity of paleontological resources 

Alternative I would have the lowest potential to affect the integrity of paleontological resources, similar to Alternatives III, IV, and V, as there would be:  Fewer Class 5 acres 

vulnerable to impacts from transportation and mineral, utility, and wind energy development 

 More Class 5 acres 

retained in Federal ownership 

 More special 

management for maintaining the integrity of paleontological resources 

Alternative II would have the highest potential to affect the integrity of paleontological resources, as there would be:  The most Class 5 acres 

vulnerable to impacts from mineral, utility, and wind energy development, even though impacts from transportation would be lowest 

 Fewer Class 5 acres 

retained in Federal ownership 

 No special 

management for maintaining the integrity of paleontological resources 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. 

Impacts to Cultural Resources The No Action Alternative Alternative I would result Alternative II would result Alternative III would result Alternative IV would rwould result in the second in the third lowest level of in the highest level of in the third highest level of in the second lowest lehighest level of impacts to impacts to the integrity and impacts to the integrity and impacts to the integrity and of impacts to the integthe integrity and setting of setting of cultural setting of cultural setting of cultural and setting of cultural cultural resources. resources. resources. resources. resources. 

2-291 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary Compariso

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Impacts to Visual Resources 

The No Action Alternative would support retaining the existing visual character of 94% of Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) Class I lands and 19% of VRI Class II lands. 

Alternative I would support retaining the existing visual character of 99% of VRI Class I lands and 65% of VRI Class II lands. 

Alternative II would support retaining the existing visual character of 97% of VRI Class I lands and 4% of VRI Class II lands. 

Same as Alternative II. Alternative IV would 

support retaining the existing visual charact99.8% of VRI Class I and 80% of VRI Class lands. 

Acres of Visual Resource Inventory Class I and II Lands whose Visual Character would be Retained 

VRI I 97,000 acres VRI II 11,000 acres 

VRI I 102,000 acres VRI II 38,000 acres 

VRI I 100,000 acres VRI II 2,000 acres 

VRI I 100,000 acres VRI II 2,000 acres 

VRI I 103,000 aVRI II 47,000 a

Impacts to Non-Wilderness Study Area Lands with Wilderness Characteristics The No Action Alternative ranks fifth for management that maintains wilderness characteristics on nonWSA lands, as there would be no specific management for these values and few or no restrictions on land use authorizations or mineral development in these areas; management for visual resources would maintain some wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative I ranks third for management that maintains wilderness characteristics on non-WSA lands, as there would be no specific management for some areas inventoried to contain these values, which have few mineral development and land use authorization restrictions, contributing to a decline in wilderness character. 

Alternative II ranks sixth for management that maintains wilderness characteristics on nonWSA lands, as there would be no specific management for these values and few or no restrictions on land use authorizations or mineral development in these areas. 

Alternative III ranks fourth for management that maintains wilderness characteristics on nonWSA lands, as there would be no specific management for these values, few or no restrictions on mineral development, but some restrictions on wind energy and utility development in these areas. 

Alternative IV ranks fifor management that maintains wilderness characteristics on nonWSA lands, as it woulmanage for all inventowilderness characteriston non-WSA lands wiminimal decreases in wilderness characteristfrom other uses. 

2-292 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Summary Compariso

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Impacts to Livestock Grazing 

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: 

160,000-260,000AUMs 

Initial implementation: 

194,000-267,000 AUMs 

Full implementation3: 

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

The No Action alternative Alternative I provides a Same as the No Action Same as the No Action Alternative IV provide

has a low level of moderate level of Alternative. Alternative. high level of limitation limitation on infrastructure limitation on infrastructure infrastructure for livesfor livestock management. for livestock management. management. The level of effort required The level of effort required Same as the No Action A moderate amount of Same as Alternative II

to minimize conflicts with to minimize conflicts with Alternative. effort would be required to livestock grazing would be livestock grazing would be minimize conflicts with low with regard to low with regard to livestock grazing with resources and high with resources and other uses. regard to resources and regard to other uses. other uses. 

Impacts to Recreation Areas with focused The SRMAs proposed in The SRMAs proposed in The SRMAs proposed in The SRMAs proposed 

recreation management Alternative I would Alternative II would Alternative III would Alternative IV would 

would not change (77,000 provide the broadest range maintain or enhance some maintain or enhance maintain or enhance 

acres). However, managing of activity type among all existing opportunities, existing opportunities. existing opportunities. 

the SRMAs without clearly alternatives, maintaining or while minimizing conflict Areas with focused Areas with focused 

established boundaries enhancing existing with resource uses. Areas recreation management recreation managemen

does not address the opportunities. Areas with with focused recreation would decrease to 56,000 would increase to 205,

existing or anticipated focused recreation management would acres. acres. 

increase in demand of the management would decrease to 21,000 acres. recreational resources. increase to 342,000 acres. 

3 For all action alternatives, reflects the impact of vegetation treatments on forage availability. 

2-293 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary Compariso

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

The type, number, and The type, number, and The type, number, and The type, number, and The type, number, and 

setting of motorized setting of motorized setting of motorized setting of motorized setting of motorized 

recreation opportunities recreation opportunities recreation opportunities recreation opportunities recreation opportunitie

would be maintained. would be enhanced. would be limited. would be enhanced. would be enhanced. 

The type, number, and The type, number, and The type, number, and The type, number, and The type, number, and 

setting of non-motorized setting of non-motorized setting of non-motorized setting of non-motorized setting of non-motoriz

recreation opportunities recreation opportunities recreation opportunities recreation opportunities recreation opportunitie

would be limited. would be enhanced. would be limited. would be maintained. would be enhanced. 

Impacts to Transportation and Travel Travel management would Travel management would Travel management would Travel management would Travel management w

be the least restrictive. be the third most restrictive 

but would continue to provide access within the majority of the planning area. 

be the second least restrictive. 

be the third least restrictive. 

be the second most restrictive but would continue to provide acwithin the majority of planning area. 

Route density is expected Route density is expected Route density is expected Route density is expected Route density is expec

to increase as a result of to decrease overall; 49% of to increase overall; 15% of to remain mostly to decrease overall; 2% 

the number of acres open the planning area is the planning area is unchanged; 98% of the the planning area is 

to cross-country motorized expected to remain at the expected to remain at the planning area is expected expected to experience 

vehicle use and available same route density, and same route density, and to remain at the same route increase in route densi

for ROW development. 48% is expected to 

experience a decrease in route density. 

85% is expected to experience an increase in route density. 

density, and 2% is expected to experience an increase in route density. 

and 98% is expected to experience a decrease route density. 

Impacts to 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

2-294 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Summary Compariso

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

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

Impacts to Land Tenure Availability of Public Lands for Various Land Tenure Transactions (Acres) 

Sale 2,000 Exchange 4,000 DLE/CA 67,000 R&PP 1,368,000 

Sale 20,000 

Exchange 264,000 DLE/CA 960 

R&PP 264,000 

Sale 46,000 Exchange 420,000 DLE/CA 960 R&PP 420,000 

Sale 20,000 Exchange 264,000 

DLE/CA 960 R&PP 264,000 

Sale 16,Exchange 245,DLE/CA R&PP 245,

Impacts to 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 [PLO]. These acres are included in figures below.) 

Open 540,000 Open with Constraint 869,000 Closed 204,000 

Open 322,000 Open with Constraint 1,013,000 Closed 278,000 

Open 705,000 Open with Constraint 696,000 Closed 212,000 

Open 705,000 Open with Constraint 694,000 Closed 213,000 

Alternative IV-A 

Open 76,Open with Constraint 1,176,Closed 360,

Alternative IV-B 

Open 76,Open with Constraint 1,208,Closed 328,

Availability of Federal Mineral Estate in Potential Oil and Gas Areas for Mineral Leasing (Acres) 

Open 169,000 Open with Constraint 189,000 Closed 22,000 

Open 80,000 Open with Constraint 285,000 

Closed 15,000 

Open 159,000 Open with Constraint 217,000 Closed 4,000 

Open 159,000 Open with Constraint 216,000 Closed 5,000 

Open 53,Open with Constraint 300,Closed 27,

Availability of Federal Mineral Estate in Potential Geothermal Areas for Mineral Leasing (Acres) 

Open 260,000 Open with Constraint 152,000 Closed 124,000 

Open 165,000 Open with Constraint 256,000 Closed 115,000 

Open 179,000 Open with Constraint 253,000 Closed 104,000 

Open 179,000 Open with Constraint 252,000 Closed 105,000 

Open 65,Open with Constraint 363,Closed 108,

In the next 20 years under the reasonably foreseeable development scenarios, approximately 90 acres would be developed for oil and gas and 20

2-295 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary Compariso

No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Impacts to Salable Minerals 

Availability of Federal Mineral Estate for Salable Mineral Development due to Minerals Actions (Acres) 

(118,000 acres are already closed to salable mineral development by statute or PLO. These acres are included in figures below.) 

Open 600 Open with Constraint 1,494,000 Closed 118,000 

Open 512,000 Open with Constraint 795,000 

Closed 306,000 

Open 669,000 Open with Constraint 731,000 Closed 212,000 

Open 655,000 Open with Constraint 695,000 Closed 262,000 

Alternative IV-A 

Open 97,Open with Constraint 1,122,Closed 394,

Alternative IV-B 

Open 97,Open with Constraint 1,154,Closed 362,

Impacts to Locatable Minerals Availability of Federal Mineral Estate for Locatable Mineral Development, Assuming Recommendations for Withdrawal are Implemen

(118,000 acres are already withdrawn from mineral entry by statute or PLO. These acres are included in figures below.) 

Open 1,000,000 Open with Constraint 277,000 Closed 336,000 

Open 463,000 Open with Constraint 914,000 Closed 235,000 

Open 525,000 Open with Constraint 924,000 Closed 164,000 

Open 525,000 Open with Constraint 878,000 Closed 210,000 

Open 97,Open with Constraint 1,250,Closed 266,

Impacts to Areas of Critical Environmental Concern The No Action Alternative Alternative I would have: Alternative II would have: Alternative III would have: Alternative IV would hwould have:  5 ACECs designated  0 ACECs designated  3 ACECs designated  5 ACECs designa

 3 ACECs designated  97,000 acres under  0 acres under ACEC  61,000 acres under  335,000 acres 

 89,000 acres under ACEC management management ACEC management (Alternative IV-A

ACEC management  25% of lands with  0% of lands with  14% of lands with 232,000 acres 

 23% of lands with relevant and important relevant and important relevant and important (Alternative IV-B

relevant and important values under special values under special values under special under ACEC values under special management through management through management through management management through ACEC designation ACEC designation ACEC designation  61% (Alternative 

ACEC designation A) and 46% 

(Alternative IV-Blands with relevanand important valuunder special management throuACEC designation 

2-296 
No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Impacts to National Historic Trails 

The No Action Alternative ranks fifth for maintaining or improving the physical, visual, or acoustic setting of the Oregon NHT, due to:  No priority for 

treatments of upland vegetation and noxious weeds and invasive plants 

 Designation of nearly 

60% of the visual foreground as VRM Class IV 

Alternative I ranks second for maintaining or improving the physical, visual, or acoustic setting of the Oregon NHT, due to:  Priority for noxious 

weeds and invasive plants treatments 

 Designation of 96% of 

the visual foreground as VRM Class III 

Alternative II ranks last for maintaining or improving the physical, visual, or acoustic setting of the Oregon NHT, due to:  No priority for 

treatments of upland vegetation and noxious weeds and invasive plants 

 Designation of 96% of 

the visual foreground as VRM Class IV and the highest amount of foreground available for wind development 

Alternative III ranks fourth for maintaining or improving the physical, visual, or acoustic setting of the Oregon NHT, due to:  Priority for noxious 

weeds and invasive plants treatments, but not for upland vegetation treatments 

 Designation of 96% of 

the visual foreground as VRM Class III to reduce changes to the visual setting 

Alternative IV ranks thfor maintaining or improving the physicavisual, or acoustic settof the Oregon NHT. This alternative is essentially identical to Alternative III, with slightly less protective corridor acres availablgrazing, thus avoiding changes to the physicasettings of the trail frothis use. 

Impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers The No Action Alternative 

ranks second for management to maintain existing ORVs and tentative classification. Decreases to these values would be due to visual resource management for study rivers with scenic ORVs and leasable and locatable mineral development potential in study river corridors. 

Alternative I ranks first for 

management to maintain existing ORVs and tentative classification. Impacts from management proposed in this alternative are essentially identical to Alternatives III, IV, and V. 

Alternative II ranks last for 

management to maintain existing ORVs and tentative classification. Decreases to these values would be due to study river lands being available for salable mineral development and no complementary management from overlapping ACECs. 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. 

Impacts to Wilderness Study Areas Because WSAs would continue to be managed under the IMP, wilderness characteristics in WSAs would continue to be maintained or enhanced

2-297 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Summary Compariso
No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Wilderness characteristics on released WSA lands would have the second lowest potential of being indirectly maintained under the No Action Alternative. 

Wilderness characteristics on released WSA lands would have the second highest potential of being indirectly maintained under Alternative I. 

Wilderness characteristics on released WSA lands would have the lowest potential of being indirectly maintained under Alternative II. 

Wilderness characteristics on released WSA lands would have the third lowest potential of being indirectly maintained under Alternative III. 

Wilderness characterison released WSA landwould have the highespotential of being direand indirectly maintainunder Alternative IV. 

Impacts to Social Conditions The No Action Alternative would have negligible effects on quality of life of planning area stakeholder groups.  The rancher 

stakeholder group would have negligible effects to quality of life. 

Alternative I would result in a minor increase in quality of life of planning area stakeholder groups.  The rancher 

stakeholder group would have negligible effects to quality of life. 

 The dispersed 

recreationist stakeholder group would have a minor increase in quality of life. 

 The hunters and 

fishermen stakeholder group would have a moderate increase in quality of life. 

Alternative II would result in a negligible to minor increase in quality of life of planning area stakeholder groups.  The rancher 

stakeholder group would have a moderate to major increase in quality of life. 

 The dispersed 

recreationist stakeholder group would have a minor decrease in quality of life. 

 The hunters and 

fishermen stakeholder group would have a minor increase in quality of life. 

Alternative III would result in a minor increase in quality of life of planning area stakeholder groups.  The rancher 

stakeholder group would have a minor to moderate increase in quality of life. 

 The dispersed 

recreationist stakeholder group would have a minor increase in quality of life. 

Alternative IV would rin negligible impacts tquality of life of plannarea stakeholder group The rancher 

stakeholder group would have a negligible to minodecrease in quality life. 

 The dispersed 

recreationist stakeholder group would have a minincrease in quality life. 

 The hunters and 

fishermen stakehogroup would have minor increase in quality of life. 

 The Type 1 Activ

stakeholder group would have a majincrease in quality life. 

2-298 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Summary Compariso
No Action Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Impacts to Economic Conditions 

Economic impacts at initial implementation of the plan would be negligible, as there would be no changes in the Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector baseline output, employment, or income. 

Economic impacts at initial implementation would be negligible to minor positive. Changes in the Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector baseline output and employment would range from a <1% decrease to a 1% increase, while changes in income would range from a <1% decrease to a 3% increase. 

Economic impacts at initial implementation would be minor to moderate positive. The Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector baseline output would increase between 3% and 5%, employment would increase between 4% and 6%, and income would increase between 6% and 9%. 

Economic impacts at initial implementation would be minor positive. The Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector baseline output would increase between 2% and 3%, employment would increase between 2% and 4%, and income would increase between 3% and 6%. 

Economic impacts at iimplementation would minor negative. The CRanching and Farming Sector baseline output would decrease betwee1% and 2%, employmwould decrease betwee1% and 3%, and incomwould decrease betwee2% and 5%. 

Economic impacts at full implementation would range from minor negative to minor positive. Changes in baseline output would range from a 1% decrease to a 1% increase, changes in employment would range from a 1% decrease to a 2% increase, and changes in income would range from a 2% decrease to a 3% increase. 

Economic impacts at full implementation would continue to be negligible to minor positive, as AUM levels are not projected to change substantially with full implementation of the plan (1% increase from initial values). 

Economic impacts at full implementation would be moderate positive. Baseline output would increase between 4% and 6%, employment would increase between 5% and 7%, and income would increase between 8% and 11%. 

Economic impacts at full implementation would be minor to moderate positive. Baseline output would increase between 2% and 4%, employment would increase between 3% and 5%, and income would increase between 4% and 7%. 

Economic impacts at fimplementation would continue to be minor negative. Even though projected AUM levels would decrease, baselioutput would still decrbetween 1% and 2%, employment would stidecrease between 1% 3%, and income would decrease between 3% 5%. 

2-299 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Summary Compariso
Chapter 2: Works Cited Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

2.9. WORKS CITED 

American Fisheries Society. (1982). The Best Management Practices for the Management and 

Protection of Western Riparian Stream Ecosystems: American Fisheries Society, 

Western Division. 

Call, M. W. (1979). Habitat Requirements and Management Recommendations for Sage 

Grouse (Technical Note No. 330). Denver, CO: USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 

FWS. (2004). Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull 

Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Reno, NV: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Guidelines for Habitat Protection in Sage Grouse Range. (1973, August 7-8, 1973). Paper 

presented at the 8th Western States Sage Grouse Workshop, Lewistown, MT. 

Karsky, R. (1999). Fences. Missoula, MT: USDI, Bureau of Land Management and USDA, 

Forest Service, Missoula Technical Development Center. 

Kerr, R. M. (1979). Mule Deer Habitat Guidelines (Technical Note No. 336). Denver, CO: USDI, 

Bureau of Land Management. 

Western States Sage Grouse Committee. (1982). Sage Grouse Management Practices 

(Technical Bulletin No. 1). Twin Falls, ID: Western States Sage Grouse Committee. 

Yoakum, J. (1980). Habitat Management Guides for the American Pronghorn Antelope 

(Technical Note No. 347). Denver, CO: USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 

August 2010 2-300