EXECUTIVE 

SUMMARY 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Table of Contents

TOC-i 

..............................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................

.....................................

.......................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................

.......................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

...............................................................................

............................................................

.............................

.......................................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................

Executive Summary

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ES-1

Introduction ES-1

Purpose and Need ES-1

Planning Issues ES-2

Collaboration ES-2

Alternatives ES-3

The Proposed RMP ES-4

Major Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS ES-5

Comparison of the Alternatives ES-5

Affected Environment ES-29

Vegetation (Upland and Riparian) ES-29

Livestock Grazing ES-32

Recreation ES-32

Energy Development ES-34

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) ES-35

Environmental Consequences ES-37

Consultation and Coordination ES-46

List of Tables 

Table ES-1. Summary Comparison of Alternatives. ES-6

Table ES-2. Acres, Historic Fire Regime, and Fire Regime Condition Class Ratings for Potential Natural 

Vegetation Groups by Vegetation Management Area. ES-29

Table ES-3. Fire Rate of Spread Rating by Vegetation Management Area (Acres) ES-30

Table ES-4. Post-Fire and Baseline Vegetation Composition in the Planning Area by Vegetation SubGroup ES-31

Table ES-5. Summary Comparison of Effects. ES-38
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Introduction

ES-1 

•

o

o

o

o

•

•

•

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of the Jarbidge Proposed Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (Proposed RMP/Final EIS) is to provide direction for managing public lands in the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Jarbidge Field Office for the next 15 to 20 years. The approved plan will 

provide the framework for making decisions about managing resources, resource uses, and special 

designations within the planning area. 

The Jarbidge RMP planning area boundary coincides with the boundary of the BLM Jarbidge Field Office. 

The boundary extends from the Bruneau River on the west to Salmon Falls Creek on the east, and from 

the Snake River on the north to the northern boundaries of the BLM Elko Field Office and the HumboldtToiyabe National Forest on the south (Map 1). It includes parts of Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls 

Counties in south-central Idaho and Elko County in northern Nevada. Although these counties have a 

combined population of approximately 165,000 (US Census Bureau, 2013b), Hot Springs, Indian Cove, 

Murphy Hot Springs, Three Creek, and Roseworth are the only communities within the planning area; 

each has a population of less than 100 people. The majority of the planning area supports sagebrush 

steppe and seeded grasslands, mostly from fire rehabilitation projects. 

Introduction

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

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

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

that may significantly affect the human environment.

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS describes and analyzes a range of management alternatives for 

the public lands and resources managed by the BLM Twin Falls District, Jarbidge Field Office in southcentral Idaho and northern Nevada (Map 1). Within the planning area, the BLM manages approximately 

1,371,000 acres of public land surface (Map 2); 1,497,000 acres of Federal mineral estate; and 1,463,000 

acres of livestock grazing including 1,371,000 acres of public land surface and an additional 92,000 acres 

on the US Air Force Saylor Creek Training Range.

Decisions made and management direction taken in the approved Jarbidge RMP will apply to land and 

resources in the planning area according to the BLM’s administrative authority and responsibility for those 

lands and resources. Management direction includes: goals, objectives, allocations, management actions, 

and the means for assessing the effectiveness of achieving goals and objectives. 

Purpose and Need

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires the BLM to “develop, maintain, and 

when appropriate, revise land use plans” (43 USC 1712[a]). In general, the purpose of this RMP is to 

provide a comprehensive framework for the BLM’s management of public lands within the planning area 

and its allocation of resources pursuant to the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate of FLPMA. This 

RMP is needed in order to address a number of new issues that have arisen since the preparation of the 

1987 Jarbidge RMP. 

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

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

Maintain consistency with FLPMA, which includes:

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

public lands;

Preserving, where appropriate, lands in their natural condition;

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

Providing for outdoor recreation, human occupancy, and use;

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

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

Resolve multiple-use conflicts or issues between resource values and resource uses;
Executive Summary: Introduction Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

ES-2 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

o

o

o

•

•

•

•

Maintain or improve ecosystem functions; 

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

Preserve important cultural, historical, and physical resources; 

Provide opportunities for sustainable uses of public lands; and 

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

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

identified through agency, interagency, and public scoping efforts.

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

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

there was a need for an updated plan. The following list of specific factors illustrates the need for 

preparation of an updated RMP: 

Changes in ecological, social, and economic conditions;

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

scoping.

Planning Issues

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

Proposed RMP/Final EIS: 

Vegetation (Upland and Riparian): 

 Fuels treatments, fire rehabilitation, and fire suppression; 

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

 Livestock forage; 

Livestock Grazing; 

Recreation; 

Energy Development; and

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

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

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

the scope of the Jarbidge RMP. Some comments suggested the China Mountain Wind Energy Project 

and the Gateway West Transmission Project be addressed through the RMP process. The China 

Mountain Wind Energy Project has been deferred until the Idaho/southwest Montana Sub-regional SageGrouse Plan Amendment and the Jarbidge RMP have been completed. It will be addressed through a 

separate environmental analysis. The Gateway West Transmission Project has been addressed in the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for Gateway West Transmission Line which was released on April 

26, 2013. 

Collaboration

Tribal Relationships

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

the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation throughout the RMP process. Formal 

government-to-government consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes is conducted through the Fort 

Hall Business Council and coordinated with the Shoshone-Bannock environmental staff. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Alternatives

ES-3 

•

•

•

•

•

•

Intergovernmental and Interagency Relationships

The Jarbidge Field Office collaborated with other Federal, State, and local agencies and governmental 

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

planning process as cooperating agencies (see Chapter 5). Seven agencies accepted the BLM’s 

invitation and signed Memoranda of Understanding to formally establish the relationship: Idaho State 

Department of Agriculture, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Department of Lands, Idaho 

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

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

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

existing coordination agreement with the Twin Falls District. 

Alternatives

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

resources and uses managed by the BLM in the Jarbidge Field Office. Chapter 2 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.

Seven management alternatives (the No Action Alternative and six “action” alternatives) provide a range 

of choices for achieving the purpose and need, meeting the multiple-use mandate of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act, and resolving the planning issues identified in detail in Chapter 1:

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

in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP and its amendments, but includes measures to comply with new legislation 

and policies, where appropriate. Lands in poor ecological condition would be improved, while lands in 

good and excellent ecological condition 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, and land use authorizations. Cross-country motorized vehicle use would 

remain open in the majority of Elmore and Twin Falls Counties but would be limited to existing routes 

in Owyhee County.

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

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

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

and water-based recreation. Livestock grazing would be maintained near current forage allocation 

levels. This alternative would focus on implementing management to benefit mule deer more than the 

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

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

Alternative II focuses on increasing commercial uses throughout most of 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 Fire Regime Condition 

Class 1, treatments for noxious weeds and invasive plants, construction of fuel breaks, and fuels 

reduction through increased permitted livestock grazing.
Executive Summary: Alternatives Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

ES-4 

•

•

•

•

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 non-native perennial 

fire-tolerant communities. Native plant communities would be restored to move toward their historic 

fire regime; extensive fuels reduction measures may be taken to manage native plant communities. 

Vegetation treatments may use both native and non-native species, with fire-tolerant and fire-resistant 

species having a high priority. Other uses would be allowed to the extent they do not contribute to an 

increase in wildland fire size and intensity. The quality and quantity of infrastructure such as roads 

and water would be increased to support fire suppression activities more in this alternative than in 

other alternatives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

move vegetation toward Fire Regime Condition Class 1, treatments for noxious weeds and invasive 

plants, and construction of fuel breaks. Alternative IV has been split into two sub-alternatives. The 

only difference between the sub-alternatives is the size of the Inside Desert and Jarbidge Foothills 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs); these ACECs would have larger boundaries in 

Alternative IV-A than in Alternative IV-B. Differences between Alternatives IV-A and IV-B also appear 

in sections in which ACEC management is a factor.

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

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

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

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

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

addressed through treatments to move vegetation toward Fire Regime Condition Class 1, treatments 

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

Alternative VI (Proposed RMP) focuses on actively restoring the resiliency of sagebrush steppe 

ecosystem structure and function through restoration projects and enhanced fire management while 

balancing uses within the planning area. Vegetation treatments could use native or non-native 

species, depending on vegetation objectives. Upland vegetation treatments would focus on restoring 

non-native perennial and native grassland communities to native shrubland, focusing on restoring and 

connecting habitat for sage-grouse, slickspot peppergrass, other special status species, and big 

game. Alternative VI emphasizes reducing the extent and number of wildland fires through treatments 

to move vegetation toward Fire Regime Condition Class 1, treatments for noxious weeds and 

invasive plants, and construction of fuel breaks. Commercial uses, including energy development, 

would be allowed, but would be subject to the greatest restrictions within sage-grouse habitat as 

compared to the other alternatives. More public land would be retained in Alternative VI than the other 

alternatives. Transportation and travel in the majority of the planning area would be limited to 

designated routes except for designated play areas in the Deadman and Yahoo SRMAs. The 

Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness would be closed to motorized and mechanized uses.

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

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

that meets the purpose and need described in Chapter 1. 

The Proposed RMP

Alternative VI (Proposed RMP) was developed after the Draft RMP/EIS was published and comments

were received and reviewed by the BLM. The Proposed RMP was developed to provide a practical and 

workable alternative to actively restore sagebrush steppe ecosystem structure, function, and resiliency 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Alternatives

ES-5 

•

•

o

o

o

o

o

•

•

•

•

through restoration treatments and enhanced fire management. Although Alternative IV-B (Preferred 

Alternative) from the Draft RMP/EIS was used as the baseline, the BLM selected goals, objectives, and 

management actions from the other alternatives that integrated ecological, economic, and social 

principles in a manner that safeguards the long-term sustainability, diversity, and productivity of the land.

Management actions were then refined based on analysis of the alternatives in the Draft RMP and 

feedback received through comments from the tribes; Federal, State, and county agencies; the public; 

and organizations. The BLM also incorporated into the Proposed RMP changes in laws, regulations, 

policy, and species status that occurred between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

Major Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS

The BLM made numerous changes between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

Changes made to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS were in response to a combination of public comments, 

updated information, and changes in BLM policy and management direction. None of the changes 

described here meet the regulatory definition for significance in 40 CFR 1508.27(a) and (b) because 

these changes resulted in minor modifications to what was considered in the Draft RMP/EIS and did not 

greatly alter the impacts analysis. These regulations require an agency preparing a NEPA document to 

review the changes for significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns 

and bearing on the Proposed RMP or its impacts, using context and intensity as the trigger for 

significance. The BLM has reviewed each change according to this regulatory standard and has 

determined that none of the changes, individually or collectively, require a supplement to this Proposed

RMP/Final EIS. The following changes have been made between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS: 

The Jarbidge Field Office administrative boundary was corrected, which decreased acres in the 

planning area from 1,374,000 to 1,371,000. 

The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (Public Law 111-11) was incorporated throughout the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS through the following:

The Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness was integrated, 

Former Wilderness Study Areas were removed, 

Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers were integrated, 

Travel Management in Owyhee County was incorporated, and

The Bruneau-Jarbidge Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) was removed because the 

SRMA is within the boundary of the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness.

The Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the 

Western United States (BLM, 2008c) was incorporated.

The Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision for Designation of 

Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land Management-Administered Lands in the 11 Western States

(BLM, 2009d) was incorporated.

BLM Manual direction released after publication of the Draft RMP/EIS was incorporated. 

Vegetation data was updated due to large fires in 2007, 2010, and 2011. 

The detailed description of the major changes from the Draft RMP/EIs to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS is 

included in Chapter 1, Section 1.7.

Comparison of the Alternatives The following tables identify differences among the alternatives for each of the planning issues. Chapter 2 

contains the full suite of goals, objectives, allocations, and management actions for each alternative.

Table ES-1 provides a summary of the primary differences between Alternative VI (Proposed RMP) and 

the other six alternatives as related to the planning issues. 
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

ES-6 

Table ES-1. Summary Comparison of Alternatives. 

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

Vegetation (Upland and Riparian)

Upland Vegetation

Goals

No goal stated. Manage vegetation to 

enhance and sustain 

existing and historic 

uses and to improve 

big game winter 

range and habitat for 

sage-grouse.

Manage vegetation to 

increase commercial 

uses while 

maintaining native 

plant communities 

and habitat for sagegrouse.

Manage vegetation to 

reduce wildland fire 

size and intensity 

while maintaining 

habitat for sagegrouse.

Manage vegetation to 

restore the resiliency 

of ecosystem 

structure and 

function and reduce 

fragmentation of 

habitat for sagegrouse and other 

native species.

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.

Manage vegetation to 

restore the ability of 

the ecosystem to 

recover following a 

disturbance and 

reduce fragmentation 

of habitat for sagegrouse and other 

native species.

Objectives

Improve lands in poor 

ecological condition 

across all Multiple Use 

Areas (MUAs; Map 3).

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.

Maintain non-native 

perennial communities. 

Manage vegetation to 

achieve the Vegetation 

sub-group (VSG) acres 

(+/- 5%) described 

below:

VMA A

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 56,000

Non-Native

Perennial 96,000

Non-Native

Understory 3,000

Native

Grassland 42,000

Native

Shrubland 22,000

Unvegetated

Areas 2,000

VMA B

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 20,000

Non-Native

Manage vegetation to 

achieve the VSG acres 

(+/- 5%) described 

below:

VMA A

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 33,000

Non-Native

Perennial 144,000

Non-Native

Understory 3,000

Native

Grassland 34,000

Native

Shrubland 5,000

Unvegetated

Areas 2,000

VMA B

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 10,000

Non-Native

Perennial 247,000

Manage vegetation to 

achieve the VSG acres 

(+/- 5%) described 

below:

VMA A

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 42,000

Non-Native

Perennial 128,000

Non-Native

Understory 3,000

Native

Grassland 37,000

Native

Shrubland 5,000

Unvegetated

Areas 6,000

VMA B

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 10,000

Non-Native

Perennial 242,000

Manage vegetation to 

achieve the VSG acres 

(+/- 5%) described 

below:

VMA A

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 33,000

Non-Native

Perennial 88,000

Non-Native

Understory 3,000

Native

Grassland 17,000

Native

Shrubland 78,000

Unvegetated

Areas 2,000

VMA B

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 10,000

Non-Native

Perennial 73,000

Manage vegetation to 

achieve the VSG acres 

(+/- 5%) described 

below:

VMA A

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 62,000

Non-Native

Perennial 72,000

Non-Native

Understory 26,000

Native

Grassland 34,000

Native

Shrubland 25,000

Unvegetated

Areas 2,000

VMA B

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 20,000

Non-Native

Perennial 70,000

Manage vegetation to 

achieve the VSG acres 

(+/- 5%) described 

below:

VMA A

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 56,000

Non-Native

Perennial 96,000

Non-Native

Understory 3,000

Native

Grassland 42,000

Native

Shrubland 22,000

Unvegetated

Areas 2,000

VMA B

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 10,000

Non-Native

Perennial 73,000
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives

ES-7 

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

Perennial 169,000

Non-Native

Understory 13,000

Native

Grassland 106,000

Native

Shrubland 298,000

Unvegetated

Areas 24,000

VMA C

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 2,000

Non-Native

Perennial 30,000

Non-Native

Understory 7,000

Native

Grassland 75,000

Native

Shrubland 188,000

Unvegetated

Areas 11,000

VMA D

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 500

Non-Native

Perennial 13,000

Non-Native

Understory 12,000

Native

Grassland 19,000

Native

Shrubland 150,000

Unvegetated

Areas 11,000

Non-Native

Understory 13,000

Native

Grassland 211,000

Native

Shrubland 125,000

Unvegetated

Areas 24,000

VMA C

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 2,000

Non-Native

Perennial 59,000

Non-Native

Understory 13,000

Native

Grassland 150,000

Native

Shrubland 78,000

Unvegetated

Areas 11,000

VMA D

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 500

Non-Native

Perennial 5,000

Non-Native

Understory 12,000

Native

Grassland 80,000

Native

Shrubland 97,000

Unvegetated 

Areas 11,000

Non-Native

Understory 19,000

Native

Grassland 96,000

Native

Shrubland 230,000

Unvegetated

Areas 33,000

VMA C

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 2,000

Non-Native

Perennial 49,000

Non-Native

Understory 26,000

Native

Grassland 68,000

Native

Shrubland 152,000

Unvegetated

Areas 16,000

VMA D

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 250

Non-Native

Perennial 6,000

Non-Native

Understory 11,000

Native

Grassland 57,000

Native

Shrubland 119,000

Unvegetated

Areas 12,000

Non-Native

Understory 76,000

Native

Grassland 106,000

Native

Shrubland 341,000

Unvegetated

Areas 24,000

VMA C

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 2,000

Non-Native

Perennial 0 

Non-Native

Understory 48,000

Native

Grassland 37,000

Native

Shrubland 215,000

Unvegetated

Areas 11,000

VMA D

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 500

Non-Native

Perennial 0 

Non-Native

Understory 5,000

Native

Grassland 8,000

Native

Shrubland 181,000

Unvegetated

Areas 11,000

Non-Native

Understory 160,000

Native

Grassland 141,000

Native

Shrubland 215,000

Unvegetated

Areas 24,000

VMA C

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 2,000 

Non-Native

Perennial 14,000

Non-Native

Understory 58,000

Native

Grassland 75,000

Native

Shrubland 153,000

Unvegetated

Areas 11,000

VMA D

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 500

Non-Native

Perennial 1,000

Non-Native

Understory 15,000

Native

Grassland 27,000

Native

Shrubland 151,000

Unvegetated

Areas 11,000

Non-Native

Understory 76,000

Native

Grassland 106,000

Native

Shrubland 341,000

Unvegetated

Areas 24,000

VMA C

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 2,000

Non-Native

Perennial 30,000

Non-Native

Understory 17,000

Native

Grassland 37,000

Native

Shrubland 216,000

Unvegetated

Areas 11,000

VMA D

VSG Desired Acres

Annual 500 

Non-Native

Perennial 0 

Non-Native

Understory 5,000

Native

Grassland 40,000

Native

Shrubland 149,000

Unvegetated

Areas 11,000
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

ES-8 

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

Management Actions

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), and

Areas for overall 

multiple use 

improvement 

using seed 

mixtures for both 

wildlife and 

livestock.

Focus restoration 

treatments on habitat 

for sage-grouse, other 

special status species, 

and mule deer.

The priority for 

implementing

vegetation treatments 

would be: 

Treatments 

identified for 

Vegetation 

Management Area 

(VMA) C to 

improve habitat for 

mule deer and 

sage-grouse and

Treatments 

identified for VMA 

A to move toward 

perennial 

vegetation. 

Focus vegetation on 

habitat for sage-grouse 

and other special 

status species.

The priority for 

implementing 

vegetation treatments 

would be: 

Treatments 

identified for VMA 

A to increase 

perennial forage 

for livestock and

Treatments 

identified for VMA 

B to increase 

forage for 

livestock.

Focus vegetation 

treatments on 

protecting or restoring 

habitat for sage-grouse 

and other special 

status species.

The priority for 

implementing 

vegetation treatments 

would be: 

Treatments 

identified for VMA 

A to help lengthen 

the fire return 

interval and

Treatments 

identified for VMA 

D to protect native 

shrubland 

communities.

Focus restoration 

treatments on habitat 

for sage-grouse, other 

special status species, 

mule deer, and 

pronghorn.

The priority for 

implementing 

vegetation treatments 

would be: 

Treatments 

identified for VMA 

D to improve 

sage-grouse 

habitat and

Treatments 

identified for VMA 

C to reconnect 

and expand 

habitat for sagegrouse.

Focus restoration 

treatments on habitat 

for sage-grouse and 

other special status 

species.

The priority for 

implementing 

vegetation treatments 

would be: 

Treatments 

identified for VMA 

A to move toward 

native perennial 

vegetation and

Treatments 

identified for VMA 

C to reconnect 

and expand 

habitat for sagegrouse. 

Focus restoration on 

habitat for sagegrouse, slickspot 

peppergrass, other 

special status species, 

mule deer, and 

pronghorn.

The priority for 

implementing 

vegetation treatments 

would be: 

Treatments 

identified for VMA 

D to improve 

sage-grouse 

habitat and

Treatments 

identified for VMA 

C to reconnect 

and expand 

habitat for sagegrouse.

Burning is proposed to 

reduce the amount of 

big sagebrush and/or 

other brush on a site. 

Chemical control of 

The toolbox to restore 

or treat upland 

vegetation 

communities would 

include:

The toolbox to restore 

or treat upland 

vegetation 

communities would 

include:

Same as Alternative II. Same as Alternative II. The toolbox to restore 

or treat upland 

vegetation 

communities would 

include:

Same as Alternative II.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives

• • •

• • •

• • •

• •

ES-9 

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

sagebrush would not 

be allowed.

Chemical, 

mechanical, and 

biological 

treatments; 

Seeding and 

planting; and 

Targeted grazing.

Chemical, 

mechanical, and 

biological 

treatments; 

Seeding and 

planting; 

Targeted grazing; 

and 

Prescribed fire.

Chemical, 

mechanical, and 

biological 

treatments; 

Seeding and 

planting; 

Removal of 

grazing; and 

Prescribed fire.

No reference areas 

would be identified. 

Establish 75 ungrazed 

reference areas 

(12,000 acres total) in 

annual, non-native 

perennial, non-native 

understory, native 

grassland, and native 

shrubland 

communities. Each 

reference area would 

be approximately 160 

acres.

Establish 52 ungrazed 

reference areas (2,000

acres total) in native 

grassland and native 

shrubland 

communities, as well 

as non-native 

perennial communities 

that have burned 

multiple times in the 

last 20 years. Each 

reference area would 

be approximately 40 

acres.

Establish 75 ungrazed 

reference areas (3,000 

acres total) in annual, 

non-native perennial, 

non-native understory, 

native grassland, and 

native shrubland 

communities. Each 

reference area would 

be approximately 40 

acres.

Establish 75 ungrazed 

reference areas 

(12,000 acres total) in 

annual, non-native 

perennial, non-native 

understory, native 

grassland, and native 

shrubland 

communities. Each 

reference area would 

be approximately 160 

acres.

Establish 40 ungrazed 

reference areas 

(194,000 acres total) in 

annual, non-native 

perennial, non-native 

understory, native 

grassland, and native 

shrubland 

communities. Each 

reference area would 

consist of an entire 

pasture.

Establish up to 52

ungrazed upland 

reference areas in 

annual, non-native 

perennial, non-native 

understory, native 

grassland, and native

shrubland 

communities. Each 

upland reference area 

could be up to 40 

acres in size.

Riparian Vegetation

Objectives

Maintain 1987 

condition of riparian 

habitat in Multiple Use 

Areas (MUAs) 4, 6, 7, 

12, 13, and 16; 

improve 44.4 miles of 

riparian habitat in 

MUAs 10, 11, 14, and 

15.

Maintain 85 miles of 

Priority 3 streams at 

proper functioning 

condition (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 over the 

life of the plan.

Maintain 85 miles of 

Priority 3 streams at 

PFC and improve the 

Priority 1 and 2 

streams to be moving 

toward PFC over the 

life of the plan.

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 

over the life of the 

plan. 

Same as Alternative III. Same as Alternative III. Same as Alternative III.
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

•

•

•

•

•

•

ES-10

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

Management Actions

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 and

Introduction of 

chemical toxicants 

as a result of 

construction, 

mining, or 

agriculture. 

Identify 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 widest.

Category 2 – Permanently flowing nonfish-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 widest.

Category 3 – Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than one 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 widest.

Category 4 – Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than one 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 widest.

In those areas where 

fish/riparian values are 

identified as high 

priority, all other 

management practices 

would be designed to 

accommodate those 

priority needs.

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 and 

riparian areas with the 

potential to serve as 

fire breaks would be a 

high priority for 

restoration.

Stream reaches 

containing special 

status species or their 

habitat would be a high 

priority for restoration. 

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.

Focus restoration on 

fish- bearing streams 

containing special 

status species.

No reference areas 

would be identified. 

Establish 10 ungrazed 

riparian reference 

areas (3,000 acres

total). 

Establish 10 ungrazed 

riparian reference 

areas (1,000 acres

total). 

Establish 10 ungrazed 

riparian reference 

areas (1,000 acres

total).

Establish 10 ungrazed 

riparian reference 

areas (3,000 acres

total). 

Establish 6 ungrazed 

riparian reference 

areas (23,000 acres

total).

Establish up to 10 

ungrazed riparian 

reference areas (up to

3,000 acres total).

Fuels Treatments, Fire Rehabilitation, and Fire Suppression

Goals

No goal stated. 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.

No goal stated. Reduce fire hazard within the WUI.

No goal stated. Manage vegetation 

communities outside 

the WUI to maintain 

or restore their fire 

regimes and mosaic 

of successional 

classes to within 

their historic range. 

Same as Alternative I. Manage vegetation 

communities to 

lengthen the fire 

return interval.

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives

ES-11

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

Objectives

No objective stated. Strive to reduce 

average wildland fire 

size and number of 

human-caused fire 

starts within the 

Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI). 

Strive to reduce 

average wildland fire 

size and number of 

human-caused fire 

starts within the WUI. 

Strive to reduce 

average wildland fire 

size, number of 

human-caused fire 

starts, and number of 

acres burned within 

and outside the WUI 

throughout the 

planning area.

Strive to reduce 

average wildland fire 

size and number of 

human-caused fire 

starts within the WUI.

Strive to reduce 

average wildland fire 

size and number of 

human-caused fire 

starts within the WUI. 

Strive to reduce 

average wildland fire 

size, number of 

human-caused fire 

starts, and number of 

acres burned within 

and outside the WUI 

throughout the 

planning area.

No objective stated. Reduce acres burned 

in vegetation types 

outside the WUI where 

more wildland fires 

have burned than 

desired/historic levels

to enhance and sustain 

existing and historic 

uses of the planning 

area.

Reduce acres burned 

in vegetation types 

outside the WUI where 

more wildland fires 

have burned than 

desired/historic levels

to facilitate commercial 

use of the planning 

area.

No similar objective 

stated.

Reduce acres burned 

in vegetation types 

outside the WUI where 

more wildland fires 

have burned than 

desired/historic levels

to achieve resilient 

ecosystem structure 

and function.

Reduce acres burned 

in vegetation types 

outside the WUI where 

more wildland fires 

have burned than in 

the Historic Fire 

Regime.

No similar objective 

stated.

No similar objective. Manage plant 

communities outside 

the WUI to move 

toward Fire Regime 

Condition Class

(FRCC) 1.

Manage native plant 

communities outside 

the WUI, excluding 

Sandberg/non-native 

areas, to move 

toward FRCC 1. 

Manage native plant 

communities outside 

the 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.

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. Manage native plant 

communities outside 

the WUI to move 

toward FRCC 1. 

Manage non-native 

plant communities to 

reduce wildland fire 

size and intensity.

No similar objective. Implement fuels 

treatments to protect 

critical suppression 

areas; limit the 

spread, size, and 

intensity of wildland 

fire; and maintain or 

improve vegetation.

Same as Alternative I. Implement fuels 

treatments to protect 

critical suppression 

areas and limit the 

spread, size, and 

intensity of wildland 

fire.

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

Rehabilitate public 

lands affected by 

wildland fires to 

accomplish multiple 

use objectives and 

Rehabilitate and 

stabilize areas to help 

stabilize soils, promote 

natural recovery, and 

establish pre-fire or 

Same as Alternative I. Rehabilitate and 

stabilize areas to help 

stabilize soils, promote 

natural recovery, and 

establish fire-tolerant 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. 
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• • • • •

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

ES-12

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

designed to reduce fire 

size.

historic vegetation 

communities.

vegetation 

communities.

Management Actions

Manage the entire 

planning area 

(1,371,000 acres) for 

full suppression. 

Critical suppression 

areas within the 

planning area would be

(491,000 acres): 

 Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI); 

Bruneau-Jarbidge, 

Lower Bruneau 

Canyon, Middle 

Snake, and 

Salmon Falls 

Creek Areas of 

Critical 

Environmental 

Concerns 

(ACECs); and 

Key sage-grouse 

habitat.

Critical suppression 

areas within the 

planning area would be 

(170,000 acres): 

WUI.

Critical suppression 

areas within the 

planning area would be

(476,000 acres): 

WUI,

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

and Salmon Falls 

Creek ACECs, 

and 

Key sage-grouse 

habitat.

Critical suppression 

areas within the 

planning area would be

(594,000 acres in 

Alternative VI-A; 

552,000 acres in 

Alternative VI-B): 

WUI;

Bruneau-Jarbidge, 

Inside Desert, 

Jarbidge Foothills,

and Lower 

Bruneau Canyon 

ACECs; and 

Key sage-grouse 

habitat.

Critical suppression 

areas within the 

planning area would be

(1,041,000 acres): 

WUI;

Lower Bruneau 

Canyon, Middle 

Snake, and 

Sagebrush Sea 

ACECs; and 

Key sage-grouse 

habitat.

Critical suppression 

areas within the 

planning area would be 

(597,000 acres): 

WUI,

ACECs,

Saylor Creek Herd 

Management 

Area, 

Occupied habitat 

and designated 

critical habitat for 

slickspot 

peppergrass,

Designated critical 

habitat for bull 

trout, and

Key sage-grouse 

habitat.

No similar 

management action.

Improve water 

availability for fire 

suppression in high 

recreational use 

areas, in accordance 

with Idaho State Law 

regarding the 

appropriation and use 

of water.

Improve water 

availability for fire 

suppression in native 

plant communities 

and the Wildland 

Urban Interface 

(WUI), in accordance 

with Idaho and Nevada 

State Law regarding 

the appropriation and 

use of water.

Improve water 

availability for fire 

suppression 

throughout the 

planning area, in 

accordance with Idaho 

and Nevada State Law 

regarding the 

appropriation and use 

of water.

Same as Alternative III. Maintain water 

availability for fire 

suppression at 2009 

levels.

Same as Alternative III.

No similar 

management action.

Consistent with other 

resource objectives, 

implement measures 

to reduce response 

time for fire 

suppression activities 

including, but not 

limited to: 

Building new 

Consistent with 

resource use 

objectives, implement 

measures to reduce 

response time for fire 

suppression activities 

including, but not 

limited to: 

Building new 

Implement measures 

to reduce response 

time for fire 

suppression activities 

including: 

Building new 

guard stations, 

Building new or 

improving 

Same as Alternative I. Consistent with other 

resource objectives, 

implement measures 

to reduce response 

time for fire 

suppression activities 

including, but not 

limited to: 

Improving roads, 

Implement measures 

to reduce response 

time for fire 

suppression activities 

including:

Building new 

guard stations,

Building new or 

improving 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

• •

•

• •

•

•

•

• • •

ES-13

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

guard stations, 

Improving roads, 

Building new 

roads in areas 

with limited 

access, 

Improving 

stream 

crossings, and 

Developing 

better signage.

guard stations, 

Improving roads, 

Building new 

roads in areas 

with limited 

access, 

Improving 

stream 

crossings, and 

Developing 

better signage. 

existing airstrips, 

Building 

helipads, 

Improving roads, 

Building new 

roads in areas 

with limited 

access, 

Improving 

stream 

crossings, and 

Developing 

better signage.

Improving

stream 

crossings, and 

Developing 

better signage. 

existing airstrips,

Building 

helipads,

Improving roads,

Building new 

roads, 

Improving 

stream 

crossings, and

Developing 

better signage.

No similar 

management action.

Implement fuels 

treatments to reduce 

fuel loads with 

consideration for other 

resource and resource 

use objectives.

Same as Alternative I. Implement fuels 

treatments to reduce 

fuel loads as 

appropriate to reduce 

wildland fire size and 

intensity.

Implement fuels 

treatments to reduce 

fuel loads with 

consideration for other 

resource objectives.

Same as Alternative 

IV.

Same as Alternative 

IV.

No similar 

management action.

Fuels treatments in the 

WUI would focus on 

areas with high and 

high/moderate 

relative risk ratings in 

the northern portion 

of the planning area.

Same as Alternative I. Fuels treatments in the 

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. Fuels treatments in the 

WUI would focus on

areas with high 

relative risk ratings in 

the northern portion 

of the planning area.

Same as Alternative III.

No similar 

management action.

Outside Special 

Recreation 

Management Areas 

(SRMAs), fuel breaks 

would follow 

disturbance corridors 

or would protect 

restoration and 

Emergency 

Stabilization and 

Burned Area 

Rehabilitation 

(ES&BAR) 

treatments; fuel 

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

follow disturbance 

corridors or would 

protect restoration or 

ES&BAR treatments. 

Fuel breaks would only 

follow designated 

roads and designated 

primitive roads. 

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. 
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

ES-14

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

breaks for SRMAs 

could be used to 

protect adjacent 

areas, protect 

facilities, and protect 

high-use areas.

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 

management action.

No similar 

management action.

No similar 

management action.

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

Goals

No goal stated. 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.

No goal stated. Manage vegetation to 

enhance and sustain 

existing and historic 

uses and to improve 

big game winter range 

and habitat for sagegrouse.

Manage vegetation to 

increase commercial 

uses while maintaining 

native plant 

communities and 

habitat for sagegrouse.

Manage vegetation to 

reduce wildland fire 

size and intensity while 

maintaining habitat for 

sage-grouse.

Manage vegetation to 

restore the resiliency of 

ecosystem structure 

and function and 

reduce fragmentation 

of habitat for sagegrouse and other 

native species.

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.

Manage vegetation to 

restore the ability of 

the ecosystem to 

recover following a 

disturbance and 

reduce fragmentation 

of habitat for sagegrouse and other 

native species.

No goal stated. Manage public lands to contribute to the conservation and recovery of sage-grouse and other special status species. 

Objectives

Protect and enhance 

Endangered, 

Threatened, and 

Sensitive species’ 

habitats in order to 

maintain or enhance 

populations within the 

planning area. 

Maintain or improve 

the quality and quantity 

of habitat for sagegrouse and other 

special status species 

by managing public 

land activities to 

sustain or benefit those 

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.

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. 

Maintain or improve 

the quality and quantity 

of habitat for sagegrouse and other 

special status species 

by managing public 

land activities to 

sustain or benefit those 

Maintain or improve 

the quality and quantity 

of habitat for sagegrouse and other 

special status species 

by managing public 

land activities to 

sustain or benefit those 

Maintain or improve 

the quality and quantity 

of habitat for sagegrouse and other 

special status species 

by managing public 

land activities to 

sustain or benefit those 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives

• • • • •

•

ES-15

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

Enhance, restore 

and/or maintain habitat 

conditions and 

availability for special 

status species and 

prevent all avoidable 

loss of habitat.

species. species. species. species.

Management Actions

Maintain present areas 

for sage-grouse 

nesting habitat in 

Multiple Use Area

(MUA) 13, and improve 

sage-grouse nesting 

through seeding and 

rehabilitation in MUA 

10.

Manage native shrubland communities in a landscape context to ensure that the seasonal habitat needs of sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate 

species are met across the planning area, where site conditions are suitable.

Manage all wildlife 

habitat within the 

planning area to 

provide a diversity of 

vegetation and 

habitats.

Focus vegetation 

treatments for mule 

deer winter range.

Focus restoration 

treatments identified 

for each Vegetation 

Management Area 

(VMA) on habitat for 

sage-grouse, other 

special status species, 

and mule deer.

Focus vegetation 

treatments identified 

for each VMA on 

habitat for sage-grouse 

and other special 

status species.

Focus vegetation 

treatments identified 

for each VMA on 

protecting or restoring 

habitat for sage-grouse 

and other special

status species.

Focus vegetation 

treatments for mule 

deer and pronghorn 

winter range.

Focus restoration 

treatments identified 

for each VMA on 

habitat for sagegrouse, other special 

status species, mule 

deer, and pronghorn.

Focus restoration 

treatments identified 

for each VMA on 

habitat for sage-grouse 

and other special 

status species.

Focus vegetation 

treatments for mule 

deer and pronghorn in 

winter range and 

migration corridors.

Focus restoration 

treatments identified 

for each VMA on 

habitat for sagegrouse, slickspot 

peppergrass, other 

special status species, 

mule deer, and 

pronghorn.

No similar 

management action.

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 

Upland vegetation 

management to benefit 

sage-grouse and other 

sagebrush-obligate 

special status species 

includes, but is not 

limited to:

Allowing native 

grassland 

communities to 

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 

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 

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 

Upland vegetation 

management to benefit 

sage-grouse and other 

sagebrush-obligate 

special status species 

includes:

Restoring annual, 

non-native 

perennial, and 

non-native 
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

ES-16

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

non-native 

understory 

communities 

toward native;

Restoring native 

grassland 

communities to 

native shrublands; 

and

Introducing forbs 

and late-seral 

grasses to native 

shrubland 

communities.

transition to native 

shrubland 

communities and 

Introducing lateseral grasses to 

native grassland

and native 

shrubland 

communities.

communities and 

Protecting islands 

of sagebrush 

habitat through 

extensive fuel 

breaks.

non-native 

understory 

communities 

toward native;

Restoring native 

grassland 

communities to 

native shrublands; 

and 

Introducing forbs 

and late-seral 

grasses to native 

shrubland 

communities.

Introducing shrubs 

to non-native 

perennial 

communities and 

native grassland 

communities.

understory 

communities 

toward native;

Restoring native 

grassland 

communities to 

native shrublands; 

and

Introducing forbs 

and late-seral 

grasses to native 

shrubland 

communities.

No similar 

management action.

Critical suppression 

areas within the 

planning area include 

key sage-grouse 

habitat.

Critical suppression 

areas within the 

planning area do not 

include key sage 

grouse habitat.

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

No similar 

management action.

Follow BLM guidelines 

for livestock grazing 

management in sagegrouse habitat. 

No similar 

management action.

Locate new 

transmission and 

phone lines, 

communications 

towers, meteorological 

towers, and wind 

turbines at least one 

to three miles away 

from occupied and 

unknown-status sagegrouse leks if it can be 

documented the 

structure would not 

conflict with the lek.

Locate new 

transmission and 

phone lines, 

communications 

towers, meteorological 

towers, and wind 

turbines more than 

one mile from 

occupied sage-grouse 

leks.

Locate new 

transmission and 

phone lines, 

communications 

towers, meteorological 

towers, and wind 

turbines more than 

three miles from 

occupied and 

unknown-status sagegrouse leks.

Locate new 

transmission and 

phone lines, 

communications 

towers, meteorological 

towers, and wind 

turbines more than 

five miles from 

occupied and 

unknown-status sagegrouse leks. 

Same as Alternative 

IV. 

Outside the sagegrouse management 

area, locate new tall 

structures (e.g. 

overhead power and 

phone lines, 

communications 

towers, meteorological 

towers, and wind 

turbines) more than 

four miles from 

occupied and 

unknown-status sagegrouse leks.

No similar 

management action.

Restrict wind energy 

site testing, monitoring, 

and development from 

occupied habitat for 

special status plants

and animals, and 

Restrict wind turbines 

and meteorological 

towers from occupied 

habitat for 

Endangered, 

Threatened, Proposed, 

Restrict wind energy 

site testing and 

monitoring and wind 

energy development 

from occupied habitat 

for special status 

Restrict wind energy 

site testing and 

monitoring and wind 

energy development 

from occupied and

suitable habitat for 

Same as Alternative 

IV. 

Outside the sagegrouse management 

area, renewable 

energy site testing, 

monitoring, and 

development should 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives

o

o o

o

o

o o

o

• • • •

•

•

•

• •

o o

o

o

ES-17

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

cultural resources 

where direct and 

indirect adverse effects 

cannot be mitigated. 

and Candidate species 

where their direct 

adverse effects cannot 

be mitigated.

plants and animals, 

and cultural resources 

where their direct and 

indirect adverse effects 

cannot be mitigated. 

special status species, 

wildlife habitat, and 

cultural resources 

where their direct and 

indirect adverse effects 

cannot be mitigated. 

avoid special status 

species habitat unless

unavoidable adverse 

effects can be 

mitigated.

Crucial wildlife habitats 

shown below would be 

open to mineral leasing 

with No Surface 

Occupancy during the 

following time periods: 

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, and

April through June 

in within two miles 

of leks in sagegrouse and sharptailed grouse 

nesting and brood 

rearing habitat.

Key sage-grouse 

habitat would be open 

to mineral leasing with 

moderate constraints:

No surface use would 

be allowed (e.g., 

exploration, 

construction, and 

drilling) within key 

sage-grouse habitat 

from mid-February 

through mid-June.

Key sage-grouse 

habitat would be open 

to mineral leasing 

without constraints.

Same as Alternative II. Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. The sage-grouse 

management area 

would be open to 

mineral leasing with 

moderate constraints:

No surface use would 

be allowed (e.g., 

exploration, 

construction, and 

drilling) within the 

sage-grouse 

management area

from March through

June. 

Livestock Forage

Allocations

Continue allocating 

approximately 200,000 

animal unit months 

(AUMs) for livestock. 

As the plan is 

implemented, between 

160,000 and 260,000 

AUMs could be issued 

for livestock depending 

on implementation of 

Allocate vegetation 

production as follows:

Native perennial 

grass production: 

65% to 75% 

to watershed 

and wildlife,

Less than 1% 

to wild 

Allocate vegetation 

production as follows:

Native perennial 

grass production: 

50% to 60% 

to watershed 

and wildlife

and

40% to 50% 

Allocate vegetation 

production as follows:

Native perennial 

grass production: 

55% to 65% 

to watershed 

and wildlife, 

Less than 1% 

to wild 

Allocate vegetation 

production as follows:

Native perennial 

grass production: 

75% to 85% 

to watershed 

and wildlife, 

Less than1% 

to wild 

Allocate vegetation 

production as follows:

Native perennial 

grass production: 

80% to 90% 

to watershed 

and wildlife, 

Less than1% 

to wild 

Allocate vegetation 

production as follows:

Native perennial 

grass production: 

60% or 

greater to 

watershed 

and wildlife, 

Less than 1% 
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

o

o

•

o o

o

o

o o o

•

o o

•

o

•

o

• •

o o o o

o

•

o o

o o

o

o

• •

o

•

o • o o o

o

•

•

o

o

o

o

o

o

•

o

•

o

•

o o

•

o

o

ES-18

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

treatments described 

in the Upland 

Vegetation section.

horses, and

25% to 35% 

to livestock. 

Non-native 

perennial grass 

production: 

60% to 70% 

to watershed 

and wildlife, 

Less than 1% 

to wild 

horses, and

30% to 40% 

to livestock.

Annual grass 

production: 

70% to 80% 

to watershed 

and wildlife

and

20% to 30% 

to livestock. 

Shrub and forb 

production: 

89% to 92% 

to watershed 

and wildlife

and

8% to 11% to 

livestock. 

Allocate approximately 

189,000 to 259,000 

AUMs to livestock at 

initial implementation 

and approximately 

179,000 to 245,000 at 

full implementation. 

to livestock. 

Non-native 

perennial grass 

production: 

40% to 50% 

to watershed 

and wildlife

and

50% to 60% 

to livestock. 

Annual grass 

production: 

20% to 30% 

to watershed 

and wildlife

and

70% to 80% 

to livestock.

Shrub and forb 

production: 

84% to 88% 

to watershed 

and wildlife

and

12% to 16% 

to livestock.

Allocate approximately 

350,000 to 423,000 

AUMs to livestock at 

initial implementation 

and approximately 

362,000 to 440,000 at 

full implementation. 

horses, and

35% to 45% 

to livestock. 

Non-native 

perennial grass 

production: 

50% to 60% 

to watershed 

and wildlife, 

Less than 1% 

to wild 

horses, and

40% to 50% 

to livestock. 

Annual grass 

production: 

50% to 60% 

to watershed 

and wildlife

and

40% to 50% 

to livestock. 

• Shrub and forb 

production: 

86% to 89% 

to watershed 

and wildlife

and

11% to 14% 

to livestock. 

Allocate approximately 

273,000 to 344,000 

AUMs to livestock at 

initial implementation 

and approximately 

276,000 to 348,000 at 

full implementation. 

horses, and

15% to 25% 

to livestock. 

Non-native 

perennial grass 

production: 

70% to 80% 

to watershed 

and wildlife, 

Less than1% 

to wild 

horses, and

20% to 30% 

to livestock. 

Annual grass 

production: 

100% to 

watershed 

and wildlife. 

Shrub and forb 

production: 

100% to 

watershed 

and wildlife. 

Allocate approximately 

94,000 to 147,000 

AUMs for livestock at 

initial implementation 

in Alternative IV-A and 

approximately 97,000 

to 151,000 in 

Alternative IV-B. At full 

implementation, 

allocate approximately 

78,000 to 123,000 

AUMs for livestock in 

Alternative IV-A and 

81,000 to 127,000 in 

Alternative IV-B. 

horses, and

10% to 20% 

to livestock. 

Non-native 

perennial grass 

production: 

80% to 90% 

to watershed 

and wildlife, 

Less than 1% 

to wild 

horses, and

10% to 20% 

to livestock. 

Annual grass 

production: 

100% to 

watershed 

and wildlife. 

Shrub and forb 

production: 

100% to 

watershed 

and wildlife. 

Allocate approximately 

46,000 to 93,000 

AUMs for livestock at 

initial implementation 

and approximately 

42,000 to 85,000 at full 

implementation. 

to wild 

horses, and

Up to 40% to 

livestock. 

Non-native 

perennial grass 

production:

Up to 70% to 

watershed 

and wildlife, 

Less than 1% 

to wild 

horses, and

Up to 45% to 

livestock. 

Annual grass 

production:

Up to 60% to 

watershed 

and wildlife

and

Up to 50% to 

livestock. 

Shrub and forb 

production: 

Up to 89% to 

watershed 

and wildlife

and

Up to 14% to 

livestock.

Allocate approximately 

216,000 to 326,000 

AUMs for livestock at 

initial implementation 

and approximately 

186,000 to 279,000 at 

full implementation. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives

•

• •

•

•

•

• •

•

• •

•

•

• •

• •

• • • • •

•

•

•

•

ES-19

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

Livestock Grazing

Goals and Objectives

Design and establish 

grazing management 

practices to meet 

fisheries, riparian, and 

water quality needs.

Provide for livestock 

grazing through proper 

grazing management 

to enhance and 

sustain existing and 

historic uses and to 

improve habitat for 

big game and sagegrouse.

Provide for livestock 

grazing through proper 

grazing management 

to maintain or 

improve the 

condition of forage 

resources while 

maintaining native 

plant communities 

and habitat for sagegrouse.

Provide for livestock 

grazing through proper 

grazing management 

to reduce wildland 

fire size and intensity 

while maintaining 

habitat for sagegrouse.

Provide for livestock 

grazing through proper 

grazing management 

to support restoration 

of the resiliency of 

ecosystem structure 

and function and to 

reduce fragmentation 

of habitat for sagegrouse and other 

native species.

Provide for livestock 

grazing through proper 

grazing management 

to move vegetation 

toward historic plant 

communities that 

provide habitat for 

sage-grouse and 

other special status 

species.

Allocate a stable level 

of available forage for 

livestock grazing 

through proper grazing 

and adaptive 

management to 

support maintenance 

and restoration of 

resilient ecosystem 

structure and 

function.

Allocations

The majority of the 

planning area would be 

available for livestock 

grazing (1,412,000 

acres). 

Salmon Falls Creek 

Canyon would not be 

available for livestock 

grazing (3,000 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. 

The majority of the 

planning area would be 

available for livestock 

grazing (1,389,000 

acres). 

The following areas 

would not be available 

for livestock grazing 

(74,000 acres): 

Canyons 

associated with 

the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers 

and Salmon Falls 

Creek; 

Middle Snake 

Area of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern (ACEC), 

except the 

Asquena pasture;

Wildlife tracts; 

Reference areas; 

Areas open to 

cross-country 

motorized vehicle 

use; and

Areas not 

The majority of the 

planning area would be 

available for livestock 

grazing (1,408,000 

acres). 

The following areas 

would not be available 

for livestock grazing 

(55,000 acres): 

Canyons 

associated with 

the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers 

and Salmon Falls 

Creek, 

Reference areas, 

Wildlife tracts, and

Areas not 

contained within 

grazing 

allotments. 

The majority of the 

planning area would be 

available for livestock 

grazing (1,407,000 

acres). 

The following areas 

would not be available 

for livestock grazing 

(56,000 acres): 

Canyons 

associated with 

the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers 

and Salmon Falls 

Creek, 

Reference areas, 

Wildlife tracts, and

Areas not 

contained within 

grazing 

allotments.

The majority of the 

planning area would be 

available for livestock 

grazing (1,324,000 

acres in Alternative 

IV-A; 1,355,000 acres 

in Alternative IV-B). 

The following areas 

would not be available 

for livestock grazing 

(139,000 acres in 

Alternative IV-A; 

108,000 acres in 

Alternative IV-B): 

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

The majority of the 

planning area would be 

available for livestock 

grazing (1,160,000 

acres). 

The following areas 

would be not available 

for livestock grazing 

(303,000 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; 

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 

(57,000 acres): 

Canyons 

associated with 

the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers 

and Salmon Falls 

Creek (below the 

dam),

Reference areas,

Salmon Falls 

Creek ACEC,

Wildlife tracts, and

Areas not 

contained within 

grazing 

allotments.
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

• •

• •

•

•

• • •

•

•

• • •

•

•

•

•

•

• •

ES-20

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

contained within 

grazing 

allotments.

Areas not 

contained within 

grazing 

allotments.

Wildlife tracts; 

Reference areas; 

and

Areas not 

contained within 

grazing 

allotments.

Management Actions

Develop grazing 

systems to maintain 

condition in Multiple 

Use Areas (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. 

Manage livestock grazing to ensure achievement of or movement towards meeting Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management 2005. 

Implement adaptive management using grazing use indicators to meet resource and special designation area objectives. Grazing use indicators include:

Utilization for upland vegetation and riparian areas, 

Bank and soil surface alteration, and

Other indicators identified on an allotment-specific basis depending on the resources present.

Implement drought management guidelines during periods of drought to maintain or achieve long-term resource productivity (Appendix F). 

No similar 

management action.

Temporary NonRenewable (TNR) 

permits would be 

allowed except in the 

following areas:

 Pastures 

containing areas 

within the 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

Rivers Wilderness, 

The riparian 

pasture of the 

Lower Saylor 

Creek Allotment in 

the Sand Point 

Area of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern (ACEC), 

Pastures 

comprised of more 

than 50% big 

game winter 

Temporary NonRenewable (TNR) 

permits would be 

allowed, except in 

pastures containing 

areas within the 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

Rivers Wilderness.

Criteria for issuing 

TNR permits in a 

particular pasture 

would include:

TNR permits may 

be allowed in 

years where 

additional forage 

for livestock is 

temporarily 

available, as 

determined by 

utilization levels;

TNR permits must 

Temporary NonRenewable (TNR) 

permits would be 

allowed except in the 

following areas:

Pastures 

containing areas 

within the 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

Rivers Wilderness,

The riparian 

pasture of the 

Lower Saylor 

Creek Allotment in 

the Sand Point 

Area of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern, 

Pastures 

comprised of more 

than 50% big 

game winter 

Temporary NonRenewable (TNR) 

permits would be 

allowed except in the 

following areas:

Pastures 

containing areas 

within the 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

Rivers Wilderness, 

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 

Temporary NonRenewable (TNR) 

permits would not be 

issued.

Temporary NonRenewable (TNR) 

permits would be 

considered in the 

Jarbidge Field Office. 

However, TNR permits 

would not be allowed 

in the following areas: 

Pastures 

containing areas 

within the 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

Rivers Wilderness 

and

The riparian 

pasture of the 

Lower Saylor 

Creek Allotment in 

the Sand Point 

ACEC. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives

• • • •

• • • • •

• • • • •

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

ES-21

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

range, or 

Pastures 

comprised of more 

than 50% native 

communities (by 

cover) excluding 

Sandberg/nonnative areas.

be consistent with 

the drought 

management

guidelines;

TNR permits may 

not be allowed 

within the 

operation of the 

permittee if 

grazing use 

criteria are 

exceeded in any 

pasture in 

planning area; and

TNR permits must 

be consistent with 

other resource 

objectives.

range, or 

Pastures 

comprised of more 

than 50% native 

communities (by 

cover) excluding 

Sandberg/nonnative areas.

comprised of more 

than 25% native 

communities (by

cover) excluding 

Sandberg/nonnative areas. 

Recreation

Goals and Objectives

Protect the Salmon 

Falls Creek Canyon 

(rim-to-rim) for its 

natural and scenic 

values through special 

designation and 

management as a 

Special Recreation 

Management Area 

(SRMA). 

Provide and sustain a variety of dispersed and developed recreational opportunities and experiences while avoiding or minimizing resource impacts.

Provide basic information on recreational opportunities on public lands not designated as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) or Extensive 

Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs). 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

Continue managing the 

following SRMAs: 

Hagerman-Owsley 

Bridge SRMA 

(3,000 acres),

Oregon Trail 

SRMA (16,000 

acres), 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

SRMA (57,000 

acres), 

Jarbidge Forks 

Manage 326,000 

acres as SRMAs. 

Designate the following 

SRMAs: 

Deadman/Yahoo 

SRMA (36,000 

acres), 

Balanced Rock 

SRMA (500 

acres), 

Little Pilgrim 

SRMA (300 

Manage 7,000 acres

as SRMAs. 

Designate the following 

SRMAs: 

Little Pilgrim 

SRMA (300 

acres), 

Jarbidge Forks 

SRMA (2,000 

acres), and

Salmon Falls 

Reservoir SRMA 

Manage 42,000 acres

as SRMAs. 

Designate the following 

SRMAs: 

Deadman/Yahoo 

SRMA (34,000 

acres), 

Balanced Rock 

SRMA (500 

acres), 

Little Pilgrim 

SRMA (300 

Manage 190,000 

acres as SRMAs. 

Designate the following 

SRMAs: 

Deadman/Yahoo 

SRMA (34,000 

acres), 

Jarbidge Forks 

SRMA (2,000 

acres), 

Canyonlands 

SRMA (149,000 

Manage 5,000 acres

as SRMAs. 

Designate the following 

SRMAs: 

Yahoo SRMA 

(3,000 acres) and

Jarbidge Forks 

SRMA (2,000 

acres).

Manage 20,000 acres

as SRMAs and 

304,000 acres as 

ERMAs. 

Designate the following 

SRMAs: 

Yahoo SRMA 

(3,000 acres),

Deadman SRMA 

(13,000 acres),

Jarbidge Forks 

SRMA (2,000 
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• • •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

ES-22

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

SRMA (4,000 

acres), and 

Salmon Falls 

Creek SRMA 

(6,000 acres).

acres), 

Jarbidge Forks 

SRMA (2,000 

acres), 

Canyonlands 

SRMA (149,000 

acres), 

Jarbidge Foothills 

SRMA (133,000 

acres), and

Salmon Falls 

Reservoir SRMA 

(5,000 acres).

(5,000 acres). acres), 

Jarbidge Forks 

SRMA (2,000 

acres), and

Salmon Falls 

Reservoir SRMA 

(5,000 acres).

acres), and

Salmon Falls 

Reservoir SRMA 

(5,000 acres).

acres), 

Balanced Rock 

SRMA (500 

acres), 

Little Pilgrim 

SRMA (300 

acres), and

Salmon Falls 

Reservoir SRMA 

(1,000 acres).

Designate the following 

ERMAs: 

Jarbidge Foothills 

ERMA (133,000 

acres), 

Canyonlands 

ERMA (149,000 

acres), 

Rosevear ERMA 

(19,000 acres), 

and

Luds Point ERMA 

(3,000 acres).

Management Actions

No similar 

management action.

The Deadman/Yahoo 

Special Recreation 

Management Area 

(SRMA) would consist 

of four Recreation 

Management Zones 

(RMZs): 

Deadman,

Pasadena,

Yahoo, and 

Rosevear Gulch.

No similar 

management action.

The Deadman/Yahoo 

SRMA would consist of 

three RMZs: 

Deadman, 

Yahoo, and

Rosevear Gulch.

Same as Alternative III. No similar 

management action.

No similar 

management action.

No similar 

management action.

The Salmon Falls 

Reservoir SRMA would 

consist of three RMZs:

Antelope Bay,

Cedar Creek, and 

Luds Point.

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

management action.

The Salmon Falls 

Reservoir SRMA would 

consist of two RMZs: 

Antelope Bay and

Cedar Creek.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives

ES-23

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

No similar 

management action.

Dispersed camping 

would be allowed. 

Dispersed camping 

may be closed or 

limited seasonally if 

resource objectives are 

impacted. 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative I. Dispersed camping 

would be allowed in 

any of the existing 

dispersed campsites 

adjacent to, or at the 

end of existing roads 

and motorized routes. 

Dispersed camping up 

to 100 feet from center 

line of existing roads or 

trails would be allowed 

if site is accessed by 

the most direct route 

possible. Dispersed 

camping may be 

closed or limited 

seasonally or as 

impacts or 

environmental 

conditions warrant. 

No similar 

management action.

Require organized 

group permits for 

groups with 50 or 

more people.

Same as Alternative I. Require organized 

group permits for 

groups with 30 or 

more people.

Same as Alternative III, Require organized 

group permits for 

groups with 20 or 

more people.

Authorize SRPs for 

commercial use or 

competitive events. 

Organized group/event 

permits may be 

required for group 

outdoor recreation 

activities or events 

which are neither 

commercial nor 

competitive at the 

discretion of the BLM 

authorized officer. 

No similar 

management action.

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.

Game retrieval using 

motorized vehicles 

would be allowed off 

designated routes, but 

would not be allowed 

within areas closed to 

motorized vehicle use. 

Motorized or 

mechanized game 

retrieval would not be 

allowed within the 

Game retrieval using 

motorized vehicles 

would not be allowed 

off designated routes.

Same as Alternative III. Same as Alternative III. Same as Alternative III.
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

•

•

•

•

• • • • •

• • • • •

•

•

• • •

• • • •

• •

•

•

•

•

ES-24

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

Rivers Wilderness.

Energy Development

Objectives

No similar objective. Provide for the 

development of 

renewable energy 

resources, 

transportation routes, 

utility corridors, 

transmission lines, 

communication sites 

and other uses with 

consideration for 

resource objectives.

Same as Alternative I. 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.

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

Allocations

The following areas 

would be utility 

avoidance/restricted 

areas (935,000 acres):

Areas within US 

Air Force (USAF) 

Military Operating 

Areas; 

Eligible, suitable, 

and designated 

Wild and Scenic 

River corridors; 

Paleontological 

sites at Glenns 

Ferry and 

Pasadena Valley 

(surface, 

underground); 

Sand Point Area 

of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) 

(surface, 

The following areas 

would be avoidance 

areas for right-of-ways 

(ROWs; 1,001,000 

acres): 

Areas within 

USAF Military 

Operating Areas; 

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

managed for 

wilderness 

characteristics; 

Oregon National 

Historic Trail 

protective zone; 

Eligible, suitable, 

and designated 

Wild and Scenic 

River corridors; 

and

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

The following areas 

would be avoidance 

areas for right-of-ways 

(ROWs; 1,001,000 

acres): 

Areas within 

USAF Military 

Operating Areas; 

Oregon National 

Historic Trail 

protective zone; 

and

Eligible, suitable, 

and designated 

Wild and Scenic 

River corridors.

The following areas 

would be avoidance 

areas for right-of-ways 

(ROWs; 1,001,000 

acres): 

Areas within 

USAF Military 

Operating Areas; 

Oregon National 

Historic Trail 

protective zone; 

Eligible, suitable, 

and designated 

Wild and Scenic 

River corridors; 

and

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

and Salmon Falls 

Creek ACECs.

The following areas 

would be avoidance 

areas for right-of-ways 

(ROWs; 1,001,000 

acres): 

Areas within 

USAF Military

Operating Areas; 

Oregon National 

Historic Trail 

protective zone; 

Eligible, suitable, 

and designated 

Wild and Scenic 

River corridors; 

and

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

ACEC.

The following areas 

would be avoidance 

areas for right-of-ways 

(ROWs; 1,227,000 

acres): 

 Areas within 

USAF Military 

Operating Areas; 

Oregon National 

Historic Trail 

protective zone; 

Eligible, suitable, 

and designated 

Wild and Scenic 

River corridors; 

and

Sagebrush Sea 

ACEC.

The following areas 

would be avoidance 

areas for right-of-ways 

(ROWs; 1,234,000 

acres): 

Areas within 

USAF Military 

Operating Areas; 

Oregon National 

Historic Trail 

protective zone 

and Kelton and 

Toana Freight 

Roads; 

Eligible, suitable, 

and designated 

Wild and Scenic 

River corridors; 

Upper Bruneau 

and Salmon Falls 

Creek ACECs; 

and

Sage-grouse 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives

•

• • •

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

ES-25

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

underground);

Dove Springs;

96 paleontological 

sites;

All rutted 

segments of 

Oregon Trail 

(overhead, 

surface, 

underground); 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

ACEC (overhead, 

surface, 

underground);

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); and

Salmon Falls 

Creek Canyon 

(overhead, 

surface, 

underground). 

and Salmon Falls 

Creek Areas of 

Critical 

Environmental 

Concern (ACECs).

management 

area.

The following areas 

would be exclusion 

areas for right-of-way 

(ROW) (62,000 acres): 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

Rivers Wilderness 

and

The following areas 

would be exclusion 

areas for ROW (63,000 

acres): 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

Rivers Wilderness, 

Lower Salmon 

The following areas 

would be exclusion 

areas for ROW (62,000 

acres): 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

Rivers Wilderness 

and

Same as Alternative I. The following areas 

would be exclusion 

areas for ROW 

(100,000 acres): 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

Rivers Wilderness, 

Lower Salmon 

The following areas 

would be exclusion 

areas for ROW 

(167,000 acres): 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

Rivers Wilderness, 

Lower Salmon 

Same as Alternative I.
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

•

•

•

•

•

• •

ES-26

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

Lower Salmon 

Falls Creek 

Wilderness Study 

Area (WSA).

Falls Creek WSA, 

and

Sand Point Area 

of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern (ACEC).

Lower Salmon 

Falls Creek WSA.

Falls Creek WSA,

Sand Point ACEC, 

and

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

managed for 

wilderness 

characteristics.

Falls Creek WSA,

Sand Point ACEC, 

and

Lands with 

Wilderness

Characteristics 

managed for 

wilderness 

characteristics.

Management Actions

No similar 

management action.

Wind energy 

developments could be 

considered in areas 

with annual or nonnative vegetation 

communities, 

consistent with 

stipulations for right-ofway (ROW) avoidance 

areas and outside 

ROW exclusion areas 

and utility ROW 

corridors. 

Applications for solar 

energy developments 

would be considered 

on a case-by-case 

basis.

Wind energy 

development can be 

considered throughout 

the planning area, 

consistent with 

stipulations for ROW 

avoidance areas and 

outside ROW 

exclusion areas and 

utility ROW corridors.

Applications for solar 

energy developments 

would be considered 

on a case-by-case 

basis.

Wind energy 

development can be 

considered in areas 

with annual or nonnative vegetation 

communities, 

consistent with 

stipulations for ROW 

avoidance areas and 

outside ROW 

exclusion areas and 

utility ROW corridors.

Applications for solar 

energy developments 

would be considered 

on a case-by-case 

basis.

Wind energy 

development can be 

considered in areas 

with annual or nonnative perennial 

communities, 

consistent with 

stipulations for ROW 

avoidance areas and 

outside ROW 

exclusion areas and 

utility ROW corridors. 

Applications for solar 

energy developments 

would be considered 

on a case-by-case 

basis.

Wind energy 

development can be 

considered in areas 

with annual or nonnative perennial 

vegetation, consistent

with stipulations for 

ROW avoidance areas 

and outside ROW 

exclusion areas and 

utility ROW corridors. 

Applications for solar 

energy developments 

would be considered 

on a case-by-case 

basis.

Commercial wind and 

solar energy 

developments would 

not be permitted inside 

the sage-grouse 

management area or 

within utility ROW 

corridors. 

Restrict wind energy 

development from 

wildlife habitat where 

adverse effects could 

not be mitigated.

Restrict wind energy 

site testing, monitoring, 

and development from 

occupied habitat for 

special status plants

and animals, and 

cultural resources 

where 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.

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 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. 

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.

Outside the sagegrouse management 

area, renewable 

energy site testing, 

monitoring, and 

development should 

avoid special status 

species habitat unless

unavoidable adverse 

effects can be 

mitigated.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

• • •

•

•

•

•

•

ES-27

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

Goals

No goal stated. ACECs would be 

managed to protect the 

important biological, 

cultural, scenic, and 

historic resources that 

meet the criteria for 

relevance and 

importance.

No alternative-specific 

goal stated

ACECs would be 

managed to protect the 

important biological, 

cultural, scenic, and 

historic resources that 

meet the criteria for 

relevance and 

importance.

ACECs would be 

managed to protect the 

important biological, 

cultural, scenic, and 

historic resources that 

meet the criteria for 

relevance and 

importance.

ACECs would be 

managed to protect the 

important biological, 

cultural, scenic, and 

historic resources that 

meet the criteria for 

relevance and 

importance.

ACECs would be 

managed to protect the 

important biological, 

cultural, scenic, and 

historic resources that 

meet the criteria for 

relevance and 

importance.

Management Actions

Manage the lands 

within the 

BruneauJarbidge ACEC

to 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. 

Manage the lands 

within the Salmon 

Falls Creek 

ACEC to protect 

the Salmon Falls 

Creek Canyon 

(rim-to-rim) for its 

natural and scenic 

values through 

special 

designation and 

management.

Manage the lands 

within the Sand 

Manage the lands 

within the 

BruneauJarbidge ACEC

to protect their 

fish, wildlife, 

botanical, scenic, 

and cultural 

resource values.

Manage the lands 

within the Lower 

Bruneau Canyon 

ACEC to protect 

vertebrate and 

invertebrate 

paleontological 

resources; restore 

and protect 

special status 

plant habitat for 

Packard’s cowpie 

buckwheat, spinenode milkvetch, 

and rare desert 

annuals.

Manage the lands 

within the Middle 

Snake ACEC to 

protect their fish 

and botanical 

values.

Manage the lands 

No ACECs would be 

designated.

Manage the lands 

within the 

BruneauJarbidge ACEC

to protect their 

fish, wildlife, 

botanical, scenic, 

and cultural 

resource values.

Manage the lands 

within the Salmon 

Falls Creek 

ACEC to protect 

scenic values, 

redband trout 

habitat, golden 

eagle nests, and 

special status 

wildlife including 

prairie falcons and 

spotted bats, and 

native vegetation 

communities.

Manage the lands 

within the Sand 

Point ACEC to 

protect the Oregon 

NHT, 

archaeological 

sites, vertebrate 

and invertebrate 

paleontological 

Manage the lands 

within the 

BruneauJarbidge ACEC

to protect their 

fish, wildlife, 

botanical, scenic, 

and cultural 

resource values.

Manage the lands

within the Inside 

Desert ACEC to 

protect their 

botanical values.

Alternative IV-A: 

Manage the lands 

within the 

Jarbidge 

Foothills ACEC

to protect their 

cultural, fish, 

wildlife, and 

botanical values.

Alternative IV-B: 

Manage the lands 

within the 

Jarbidge 

Foothills ACEC

to protect their 

cultural, wildlife, 

and botanical 

 Manage the lands 

within the Lower 

Bruneau Canyon 

ACEC to protect 

vertebrate and 

invertebrate 

paleontological 

resources; restore 

and protect 

special status 

plant habitat for 

Packard’s cowpie 

buckwheat, spinenode milkvetch, 

and rare desert 

annuals.

Manage the lands 

within the Middle 

Snake ACEC to 

protect their fish 

and botanical 

values.

Manage the lands 

within the 

Sagebrush Sea 

ACEC to protect 

their cultural, fish, 

wildlife, and 

botanical values.

Manage the lands 

within the Sand 

Point ACEC to 

Manage the lands 

within the Upper 

Bruneau Canyon 

ACEC to protect 

and maintain 

habitat for 

California bighorn 

sheep, other 

special status 

wildlife, interior 

redband trout and 

native fishery, 

special status 

plants including 

Davis 

peppergrass, 

scenic, and 

cultural resource 

values.

Manage the lands 

within the Lower 

Bruneau Canyon 

ACEC to protect 

vertebrate and 

invertebrate 

paleontological 

resources; restore 

and protect 

special status 

plant habitat for 

Packard’s cowpie 

buckwheat, spine-
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Alternatives Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

•

•

•

•

•

ES-28

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

Point ACEC to 

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.

within the Salmon 

Falls Creek 

ACEC to protect 

scenic values, 

redband trout 

habitat, golden 

eagle nests, 

special status 

wildlife including 

prairie falcons and 

spotted bats, and 

native vegetation 

communities.

Manage the lands 

within the Sand 

Point ACEC to 

protect the Oregon 

National Historic 

Trail (NHT), 

archaeological 

sites, vertebrate 

and invertebrate 

paleontological 

resources, and the 

Glenns Ferry 

geologic 

formation.

resources, and the 

Glenns Ferry 

geologic 

formation.

values.

Manage the lands 

within the Lower 

Bruneau Canyon 

ACEC to protect 

vertebrate and 

invertebrate 

paleontological 

resources; restore 

and protect 

special status 

plant habitat for 

Packard’s cowpie 

buckwheat, spinenode milkvetch, 

and rare desert 

annuals.

Manage the lands 

within the Sand 

Point ACEC to 

protect the Oregon 

NHT, 

archaeological 

sites, vertebrate 

and invertebrate 

paleontological 

resources, and the 

Glenns Ferry 

geologic 

formation.

protect the Oregon 

NHT, 

archaeological 

sites, vertebrate 

and invertebrate 

paleontological 

resources, and the 

Glenns Ferry 

geologic 

formation.

node milkvetch, 

and rare desert 

annuals.

Manage the lands 

within the Salmon 

Falls Creek 

ACEC to protect 

scenic values, 

redband trout 

habitat, golden 

eagle nests, 

special status 

wildlife including 

prairie falcons and 

spotted bats, and 

native vegetation 

communities.

Manage the lands 

within the Sand 

Point ACEC to 

protect the Oregon 

NHT, 

archaeological 

sites, vertebrate 

and invertebrate 

paleontological 

resources, and the 

Glenns Ferry 

geologic 

formation. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Affected Environment

ES-29

Affected Environment

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

the planning issues. Chapter 3 describes in detail the current condition of tribal rights and interests, 

resources, resources uses, special designations, and social and economic features.

Vegetation (Upland and Riparian)

Fuels Treatments, Fire Rehabilitation, and Fire Suppression

Between 1987 and 2011, an average of 72,000 acres burned in the planning area each year, with a total 

of 1,806,000 acres burned during that 25-year period. The number of acres burned each year varied from 

a low of 600 acres in 2009 to a high of 505,000 acres in 2007. Approximately one-third of the planning 

area (688,000 acres) has burned at least once during this 25-year period. These figures are based on 

fires greater than 10 acres and include all areas burned regardless of ownership. 

During this time there were 532 fires for an average of 21 fires per year. The majority of wildland fire

ignitions in the planning area (62%) were caused by lightning, while human-caused fires comprised 38%.

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

acres.

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

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

referred to as Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCC) and are delineated as FRCC 1, FRCC 2, and 

FRCC 3 (Barrett et al., 2010). FRCC is a classification of the amount of departure from the historic fire 

regime (HFR) and the associated historical vegetation. FRCC 1 (low departure) is considered to be within 

the historic range of variability of a given HFR, while FRCC 2 (moderate departure) and FRCC 3 (high 

departure) are outside the historic range of variability. 

HFR I has a 0-35 year fire return interval and generally low-severity and mixed-severity fires. HFR II has a 

0-35 year fire return interval and high-severity fires. HFR III has a 35-200 year fire return interval and 

generally low-severity and mixed-severity fires. HFR IV has a 35-200 years fire return interval and highseverity fires. HFR V has a fire return interval of 200+ years and generally replacement-severity fires. 

FRCC and historic fire regime in the planning area were determined based on potential natural vegetation

groups. 

Table ES-2 displays for each Vegetation Management Area (VMA) the acres, the HFR, and the FRCC 

rating for each potential natural vegetation groups. 

Table ES-2. Acres, Historic Fire Regime, and Fire Regime Condition Class Ratings for Potential 

Natural Vegetation Groups by Vegetation Management Area

Potential Natural Vegetation Group Acres Historic Fire 

Regime FRCC Rating

VMA A

Basin Big Sagebrush 600 IV 3 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree < 100 I 3 

Salt Desert Shrub 2,000 V 3 

Wyoming Big Sagebrush Steppe 213,000 IV 3 

VMA B

Basin Big Sagebrush 200 IV 3 

Black and Low Sagebrush 300 III 2 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree 400 I 3 

Salt Desert Shrub 4,000 V 2 

Wyoming Big Sagebrush Steppe 603,000 IV 2 

VMA C

Basin Big Sagebrush 9,000 IV 3 

Black and Low Sagebrush 10,000 III 3 
Executive Summary: Affected Environment Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

ES-30

Potential Natural Vegetation Group Acres Historic Fire 

Regime FRCC Rating

VMA C

Mountain Big Sagebrush 800 IV 2 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree < 100 I 3 

Stable Aspen < 100 I 3 

Wyoming Big Sagebrush Steppe 285,000 IV 2 

VMA D

Basin Big Sagebrush 18,000 IV 3 

Black and Low Sagebrush 101,000 III 2 

Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany 3,000 III 3 

Mountain Big Sagebrush 35,000 IV 1 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree 6,000 I 3 

Stable Aspen 3,000 I 2 

Wyoming Big Sagebrush Steppe 28,000 IV 2 

Analysis was based on 2016 projected vegetation, used as the baseline vegetation composition for the RMP.

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

vegetation. Fuel models are used to estimate or predict potential fire behavior and effects, such as flame 

length and rate of spread under various environmental parameters. Flame length corresponds to fire line

intensity, while rate of spread relates to fire size. Fuel models designed for this purpose do not account 

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

assigned to each potential natural vegetation group successional class using Standard Fire Behavior Fuel 

Models (Scott and Burgan, 2005). 

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

important characteristic in evaluating fire size. Each fuel model has an associated adjective rating to 

represent the rate of spread. Table ES-3 shows the acres of vegetation within each rating. Approximately 

76% of the planning area has fuels with a rate of spread rating of high or very high.

Table ES-3. Fire Rate of Spread Rating by Vegetation Management Area (Acres)

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

Extreme 0 0 0 0 

Very High 80,000 39,000 2,000 6,000

High 132,000 473,000 255,000 52,000

Moderate 0 < 100 5,000 57,000

Low 3,000 89,000 34,000 34,000

Very Low 0 3,000 5,000 45,000

Non-Burnable 5,000 26,000 12,000 14,000

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

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

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

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

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

from monitoring when fire spread and values are predicted to be very low to responding with all available 

suppression resources when spread and values are predicted to be high. Wildland Fire Use is a 

management action which accomplishes resource objectives through the use of fire; however, fire must 

occur naturally (lightning) and the area analyzed to allow the action. Currently, the 1987 Jarbidge RMP 

does not identify areas which allow this action. 

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

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

precipitation, wildland fires, post-fire vegetation treatments, weather, livestock grazing, invasive plant 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Affected Environment

•

•

•

•

•

•

ES-31

introduction and spread, and cross-country motorized vehicle use. For management and analysis 

purposes, the 53 vegetation communities in the planning area were grouped into seven vegetation subgroups (VSGs). Vegetation communities were grouped into VSGs based on dominant vegetation and 

community structure, since communities with similar dominant vegetation and community structure were 

expected to have similar management objectives: 

Annual communities – dominated by cheatgrass, Russian thistle, tumble mustard, or a combination 

of the three non-native species; shrubs, such as rabbitbrush and Wyoming big sagebrush, may be 

present, but occur at less than 10% canopy cover.

Non-native Perennial communities – dominated or co-dominated by seeded non-native perennial 

species, including crested wheatgrass and intermediate wheatgrass; native or seeded shrubs (e.g., 

four-wing saltbush) might occur in these communities at less than 10% canopy cover. 

Non-native Understory communities – dominated by native shrubs in the overstory and non-native 

species in the understory; overstory species include Wyoming big sagebrush, basin big sagebrush,

black sagebrush, and low sagebrush; understory species are non-native perennial grasses, including 

crested wheatgrass and intermediate wheatgrass. 

Native Grassland communities – dominated by native grasses such as basin wildrye, bluebunch 

wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, Idaho fescue, Indian ricegrass, needle-and-thread, Thurber’s 

needlegrass, western wheatgrass, and, in the semi-wet meadow community, herbaceous wetland

species. 

Native Shrubland communities – dominated by low and tall shrub-dominated communities, as well

as woodland communities; typically evergreen and either dominated or co-dominated by basin big 

sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, subalpine sagebrush, low sagebrush, 

black sagebrush, early sagebrush, shadscale, mountain mahogany, ceanothus, bud sage, bitterbush, 

rabbitbrush, and four-wing saltbush. 

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

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

Large wildland fires occurred in 2007 and 2010 following completion of a vegetation mapping effort in 

2006, resulting in over 500,000 acres of burned vegetation that were re-mapped as the Recent Burn 

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

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

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

2016 (Map 10). Vegetation composition following wildland fires through 2011 (post-fire) and the 2016 

projected vegetation composition (baseline) of the planning area by VSG are presented in Table ES-4. 

Table ES-4. Post-Fire and Baseline Vegetation Composition in the Planning Area by Vegetation 

Sub-Group

VSG Post-Fire Vegetation

% Composition

Baseline Vegetation

% Composition

Annual 9 9 

Non-Native Perennial 25 26

Non-Native Understory 5 4 

Native Grassland 33 35

Native Shrubland 23 22

Unvegetated Areas 5 4 

No Data < 1 < 1 

Data include vegetation as of Fall 2011 and projected vegetation in areas burned through 2011 (baseline).

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

springs or seeps. There are approximately 316 miles of perennial streams and rivers, 512 miles of 

intermittent streams, and 3,192 miles of ephemeral streams within the planning area. Proper Functioning 

Condition assessments were conducted on 225 miles of riparian areas crossing BLM-managed lands 

within the planning area. Approximately 85 miles of riparian areas in the planning area are at Proper 

Functioning Condition; 128 miles are functioning-at-risk, and 12 miles are non-functioning. The 

functioning-at-risk ratings include functioning-at-risk with an upward trend (51 miles), functioning-at-risk 
Executive Summary: Affected Environment Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

ES-32

1

1

•

•

•

•

•

•

with a downward trend (30 miles, and functioning-at-risk with no apparent trend (47 miles). The condition 

of 20 miles of the streams assessed was unknown.

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

Livestock Forage

Currently, approximately 189,000 animal unit months (AUMs) of active use are authorized on the 

allotments within the planning area (Appendix J), including 12,154 AUMs in the US Air Force Saylor 

Creek Training Range; 96% of the AUMs are allocated to cattle, 4% to domestic sheep, and less than 1% 

to domestic horses. Interim grazing measures pursuant to stipulated settlement agreements govern 

112,620 of these AUMs. Interim measures vary by agreement but generally affect seasons-of-use, 

utilization limits, and stocking rates to address special status species habitat requirements. The interim 

measures are to be in effect until the grazing permits could be reissued under updated environmental 

analysis.

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

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

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

1997 and as low as approximately 109,000 AUMs in 1988. Between 2002 and 2011, the average actual 

use was approximately 173,000 AUMs.

Livestock Grazing

The planning area is divided into 93 grazing allotments on 1,371,000 acres of BLM-managed lands with 

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

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

Salmon Falls Creek Canyon was identified in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP as unavailable to livestock grazing. 

The Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons are not contained within grazing allotments administered by the 

Jarbidge Field Office. However, portions of the planning area within the Bruneau River Canyon are 

currently being grazed within the Bruneau Canyon Allotment administered by the Bruneau Field Office, 

Boise District. 

Recreation

Recreation

There are six developed recreation sites within the planning area. Currently, these six sites do not meet 

the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 criteria for charging fees. None of the sites have 

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

and their amenities:

Bruneau Canyon Overlook - Parking area, interpretive kiosks, and protective fence structures; 

Bruneau River Launch Site, East - Parking and information kiosk; 

Bruneau River Take-out - Information kiosk; 

Cedar Creek Reservoir (Roseworth Reservoir) - Parking area, vault restrooms, and docks; 

East Fork Jarbidge River Recreation Sites (four sites) - Vault restrooms, picnic tables, and fire

rings with grills; and

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

restrooms, and information kiosk. 

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

hunter-days in pursuit of mule deer and pronghorn in the planning area was 7,220 between 2007 and 

2011 (IDFG, 2012d). In 2011, elk hunting units 46 and 47 were separated from a larger geographic 

hunting unit, and the total for the season was 598 hunter-days, with anticipation of increased participation 

in the future (IDFG, 2012d). 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Affected Environment

ES-33

•

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

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

Reservoir is one of the most heavily used fisheries in south-central Idaho. In 2010, a Salmon Falls Creek

Reservoir angler effort survey was conducted by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG, 2012a). 

Out of a total of 215 days in the survey period, the angler survey was completed on the reservoir on 75 of 

those days, or 35% of the time. Estimated angler effort in the surveyed sections and time period was 

89,046, + 1,617 hours. Average angler catch rates on trout during the surveyed period in all intervals 

were 1.02 fish, + 0.03 fish per hour. Peak months of fishing activity typically are April through October. 

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

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

much of the trail is in remote terrain with difficult access. The Roberson Trail is located in the BruneauJarbidge Rivers Wilderness which dictates a no mechanized or motorized use. This trail is used in the 

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

rapids on the Bruneau Wild and Scenic River. 

Whitewater recreation continues to be a popular activity locally, regionally, and nationally. The Jarbidge 

and Bruneau rivers have a growing national reputation for those attracted to remote, wild, and spectacular 

canyons and a challenging whitewater boating experience. The float season lasts approximately one 

month, with the peak use occurring during the latter part of May. Water runoff from snowpack in the 

Jarbidge Mountains usually dictates the optimum flows for this activity. In 1983, the Jarbidge Field Office

implemented a mandatory registration system for private boaters on the Jarbidge and Bruneau Rivers, 

which provides some use data. While the Jarbidge Field Office administers outfitting on the Jarbidge and 

Bruneau Rivers, maintenance of facilities and accountability for visitor use are currently shared with the 

Bruneau Field Office, Boise District. 

Transportation and Travel Management

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

trails) in the planning area (Map 71). Based on field observations and recent aerial photography, the 

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

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

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

than BLM roads and provide access to and through BLM lands, supporting a higher volume of traffic than 

other roads in the planning area. These county roads are maintained by the six local highway districts 

and, in some areas, by the US Air Force if higher standards are required for operations connected with 

training ranges. 

In addition to main and local routes, numerous primitive roads are laced throughout the planning area 

connecting more remote locations to main roads. These primitive roads are used for administrative 

access (i.e., range monitoring), recreational purposes, access to private land inholdings, and access to

livestock management infrastructure. Some of these routes are maintained as needed and are of native 

surface: dirt, gravel, or sand.

The growth of off-highway vehicle (OHV) use has become an issue because of the number of users who 

participate in this recreation opportunity with limited designated OHV areas and routes, as well as 

concerns related to the potential resource degradation resulting from high levels of unmanaged motorized 

use in and near sensitive areas. During public scoping, more than 31% of comments received on 

resource uses related to transportation and access and OHV use. 

Areas are designated during the planning process in accordance with BLM regulations and include the 

following three management categories:

Open to Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Use - An area where all types of vehicle use are

permitted at all times, anywhere within the designated “open” area. This refers to cross-country travel 

both on and off roads. 
Executive Summary: Affected Environment Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

ES-34

•

•

2

2

Limited to Designated Routes - Areas where vehicle use is restricted at certain times, in certain 

areas, and/or to certain vehicular uses in order to meet specific resource management objectives. 

These limitations may include: limiting the number or types of vehicles; limiting the time or season of 

use; permitted, administrative, or licensed use only; use on existing roads and trails; and limiting use 

to designated roads and trails. 

Closed to Motorized Vehicle Use - Motorized vehicles are permanently or temporarily prohibited. 

The use of motorized vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons (e.g., emergency 

services); such use shall be made only with the approval of the BLM authorized officer (43 CFR 

8340.0-5). 

The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (OPLMA; Public Law 111-11) was signed by the President 

on March 30, 2009. OPLMA directed the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a travel management plan for 

motorized and mechanized OHV recreation on BLM-managed lands in Owyhee County. In general, the 

plan would limit recreational motorized and mechanized OHV use to a system of designated roads and 

trails; this limitation would not apply to snowmobiles. Until the plan is completed, all recreational 

motorized and mechanized OHV use (excluding snowmobiles) shall be limited to roads and trails lawfully 

in existence on the day before the enactment of the act.

OPLMA changed all open areas in Owyhee County to “limited to designated routes”, with a “limited to 

existing routes” in effect until a transportation plan is completed. Inventoried ways, within the released 

Wilderness Study Area (32,080 acres) are also “limited to designated routes”, with a “limited to existing 

routes” in effect until a transportation plan is completed. All acres within the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers 

Wilderness are closed to motorized and mechanized vehicle use under OPLMA.

Energy Development

Land Use Authorizations

Renewable energy includes geothermal , wind, hydroelectric, and solar power.

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

 There are no renewable 

energy developments on public lands within the planning area; however, the Jarbidge Field Office has 

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

only authorized use granted to date is the 2007 Renewable Energy Systems (RES) right-of-way (ROW) 

for wind velocity test towers on China Mountain. The authorization allowed RES to construct four 

meteorological (MET) towers within a 13,000-acre ROW area. The ROW was amended in 2009 to 

authorize the installation of two additional MET towers and was renewed for a three year period in 2010.

In 2011 and 2012, RES removed the MET towers and provided a decommissioning plan. RES has 

requested a relinquishment for the MET tower ROW.

In May 2007, RES submitted an application to construct a commercial wind energy project in portions of 

the Jarbidge and Wells Field Offices. The proposed wind development was to produce 425 megawatts on 

approximately 30,700 acres; 4,700 acres would be managed by the Wells Field Office, 2,000 acres would 

be managed by the State of Idaho, 15,300 acres would be managed by the Jarbidge Field Office, and 

approximately 8,700 acres on private land. The processing of RES’s project level EIS has been deferred 

pending the decision of the Greater Sage-Grouse Western Regional Land-Use Plan Revision and 

Jarbidge RMP Record of Decision. The Jarbidge Field Office has also received one more renewable 

energy application for wind development in the Bell Rapids area; however, the processing for this 

application was also placed on hold pending the Jarbidge RMP Record of Decision. 

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

and public land. The Jarbidge Field Office received an application for an upgrade on a road that would 

support a wind farm on private land in the Bell Rapids area. 

Under current conditions and technology, Idaho does not have significant potential for commercial solar 

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

/day (NREL, 2009a); 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Affected Environment

ES-35

3

3

•

•

•

therefore, the planning area is not currently identified as a high-priority State for solar energy 

development (NREL, 2009b) . 

See also BLM IM 2011-003.

Leasable Minerals

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

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

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

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

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

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

recently been expressed, the areas with potential for oil and gas leasing include the Cedar Creek/China 

Mountain areas and the northwest corner of the planning area (Map 114); these areas are referred to as 

the potential oil and gas areas. However, even though the potential for leasing in these areas is slightly 

higher than the potential in the rest of the planning area, the potential for discovery and development is 

considered to be low. Appendix K contains the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) 

for oil and gas resources in the planning area.

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

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

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

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

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

planning area, determined to have medium potential for geothermal resources (Map 115); these areas 

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

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

is higher than for oil and gas development but still considered low. Appendix L contains the RFDS for 

geothermal resources in the planning area.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

The Jarbidge Field Office contains three ACECs:

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

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

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

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

River from the Jarbidge River confluence to the planning area boundary. Portions of Clover, Deep, 

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

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

bull trout, and redband trout), and natural systems or processes (Bruneau River phlox, Davis 

peppergrass, and riparian systems). 

The Salmon Falls Creek ACEC encompasses 6,000 acres of BLM-managed land. The ACEC is 

located within the Salmon Falls Creek Canyon (rim to rim), extending from Balanced Rock Crossing 

Park south to the private land near Salmon Falls Creek Dam. The Salmon Falls Creek ACEC is 

located in both the Jarbidge and Burley Field Offices. The west side of the ACEC is managed by the 

Jarbidge Field Office while the east-side of the ACEC is managed by the Burley Field Office; Salmon 

Falls Creek is the dividing line. While the ACEC encompasses 6,000 acres, only 3,000 acres are 

within the Jarbidge Field Office. Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include scenic 

values, fish resources (redband trout), and natural systems or processes (upland vegetation).

The Sand Point ACEC encompasses 800 acres of BLM-managed lands south of the Snake River

near Hammett, Idaho. The ACEC extends from the high water mark along the Snake River about 0.5 

to 0.75 miles south into the upland plateau. Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include 

historic and cultural values and natural systems or processes (paleontological and geological 

resources).
Executive Summary: Affected Environment Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

ES-36

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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

relevance and importance:

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

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

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

include the remainder of the Jarbidge River and additional upland areas in the Diamond A and Inside 

Desert areas not already within the existing ACEC, as well as bull trout habitat along the Jarbidge 

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

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

values meet relevance and importance criteria in the extensions as in the existing ACEC. 

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

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

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

include areas south of the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness boundary on the Bruneau River, 

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

relevance and importance criteria in the reduced boundary as in the existing ACEC. 

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

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

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

Butte and would be adjacent to the Juniper Butte Training Range. The ACEC boundary was drawn 

along existing pasture fences to make the nominated ACEC manageable. Values meeting relevance 

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

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

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

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

Training Range. The slickspot peppergrass values within the small boundary of the ACEC are the 

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

boundary would contain 83% of the acres supporting slickspot peppergrass on BLM-managed lands 

in the planning area. 

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

Foothills ACEC would encompass 134,000 acres of BLM-managed land in the southern third of the 

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

Salmon Falls Creek and from Three Creek Highway to the southern boundary of the planning area. 

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

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

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

Foothills ACEC would encompass 64,000 acres of BLM-managed land and would be located in the 

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

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

planning area. This boundary for the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC would focus management on a block of 

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

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

the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC as in the large boundary; however redband trout did not meet 

importance criteria and spotted frogs would no longer occur within the ACEC boundary.

Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC (Large Boundary) – The proposed Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC 

would encompass 1,000 acres of BLM-managed land. The ACEC would be located along the east 

side of the lower Bruneau River, southeast of Indian Bathtub. Values meeting relevance and 

importance criteria include fish or wildlife resources (Bruneau hot springsnail) and natural systems or 

processes (paleontological resources, special status plant assemblages, thermal seeps and springs).

Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC (Small Boundary) – The proposed Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC

would encompass 900 acres of BLM-managed land. The small ACEC boundary, southeast of Indian 

Bathtub does not include areas contained within the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness and the 

designated Wild and Scenic River corridor. The same values meet relevance and importance criteria 

in the small boundary of the Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC as in the large boundary, except thermal 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Environmental Consequences

ES-37

•

•

•

•

seeps and springs which support the Bruneau hot springsnail would not be included within the ACEC

boundary. However, they are within the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness boundary and the 

designated Wild and Scenic River corridor.

Middle Snake ACEC – The proposed Middle Snake ACEC would encompass 7,000 acres of BLMmanaged lands; these lands are separated in several areas by blocks of private land. The ACEC

would be located in an area southeast of King Hill to the Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument. 

The ACEC would extend from the planning area boundary in the Snake River to the canyon rim or to 

existing fences on the adjacent uplands. Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include 

fish or wildlife resources (Snake River snails and white sturgeon) and natural systems or processes 

(special status plant assemblages).

Sagebrush Sea ACEC – The proposed Sagebrush Sea ACEC would encompass 956,000 acres of 

BLM-managed land, roughly the southern two-thirds of the planning area. It would extend from the 

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

southern boundary of the planning area. The northern boundary would follow the road that runs from 

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

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

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

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

Davis’ peppergrass, and Bruneau River phlox).

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

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

800 acres of the existing Sand Point ACEC as well as the Morgan property, an additional 200 acres 

between the existing ACEC and the Snake River; totaling 1,000 acres. The Morgan property was 

acquired by BLM in 2002 to protect the relevant and important values of the existing ACEC that 

extended onto this property. The same values meet relevance and importance criteria in the 

expanded boundary of the Sand Point ACEC as in the existing ACEC. 

Upper Bruneau Canyon ACEC – The proposed Upper Bruneau Canyon ACEC would encompass 

18,000 acres of BLM-managed land. The ACEC would be located along the upper Bruneau River and 

the surrounding uplands within the southern-most portion of the planning area. The ACEC includes 

the Bruneau Canyon and adjacent uplands from the planning area boundary to the south extending to 

the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness boundary to the north. Values meeting relevance and 

importance criteria include cultural values, scenic values, fish or wildlife resources (bighorn sheep, 

redband trout), and natural systems or processes (Davis peppergrass and riparian system).

Environmental Consequences

Table ES-5 provides a summary of the impacts, as related to the planning issues, on the human and 

natural environment that are proposed to occur from implementing Alternative VI (Proposed RMP) and

the six other alternatives presented in Chapter 2. 

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

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

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

impacts on resources, resource uses, special designations, and social and economic conditions. 

Management actions expected to impact a specific resource, resource use, special designation, or social 

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

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

conditions, and responses in similar areas.
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Effects Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

• • • • • •

ES-38

Table ES-5. Summary Comparison of Effects.

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

Vegetation (Upland and Riparian)

Upland Vegetation

Acres of Vegetation Sub-Groups (VSGs) in the Planning Area Following Vegetation Treatments:

Annual 120,000

Non-Native

Perennial 402,000

Non-Native

Understory 40,000

Native

Grassland 476,000

Native

Shrubland 285,000

Annual 78,500

Non-Native

Perennial 308,000

Non-Native

Understory 35,000

Native

Grassland 243,000

Native

Shrubland 659,000

Annual 45,500

Non-Native

Perennial 455,000

Non-Native

Understory 41,000

Native

Grassland 476,000

Native

Shrubland 306,000

Annual 54,250

Non-Native

Perennial 425,000

Non-Native

Understory 59,000

Native

Grassland 259,000

Native

Shrubland 507,000

Annual 45,500

Non-Native

Perennial 161,000

Non-Native

Understory 132,000

Native

Grassland 169,000

Native

Shrubland 816,000

Annual 84,500

Non-Native

Perennial 157,000

Non-Native

Understory 259,000

Native

Grassland 278,000

Native

Shrubland 545,000

Annual 68,25

Non-Native

Perennial 199,000

Non-Native

Understory 101,000

Native

Grassland 226,000

Native

Shrubland 729,000

Acres of Seral Stages in the Planning Area Following Vegetation Treatments:

Early 476,000

Mid 52,000

Late 224,000

Uncharacteristic 569,000

Early 242,000

Mid 442,000

Late 216,000

Uncharacteristic 421,000

Early 477,000

Mid 88,000

Late 216,000

Uncharacteristic 540,000

Early 260,000

Mid 292,000

Late 212,000

Uncharacteristic 538,000

Early 170,000

Mid 597,000

Late 216,000

Uncharacteristic 338,000

Early 279,000

Mid 327,000

Late 216,000

Uncharacteristic 499,000

Early 227,000

Mid 508,000

Late 216,000

Uncharacteristic 370,000

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.

Alternative II would 

create a relatively 

homogeneous 

landscape dominated 

by early-seral and 

uncharacteristic 

vegetation in 

Vegetation 

Management Areas 

(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, V, or 

VI. 

Alternative IV would 

create a landscape 

dominated by native 

communities in a 

variety of seral stages 

and the lowest 

proportion of 

uncharacteristic 

vegetation of all the 

alternatives. This 

would improve 

landscape functions, 

including water 

infiltration, nutrient 

cycling, and soil 

stabilization.

Alternative V would 

create a landscape 

with large patches of 

native communities in 

a variety of seral 

stages interspersed 

with non-native 

perennial and nonnative understory 

communities. This 

would improve 

landscape functions, 

including water 

infiltration, nutrient 

cycling, and soil 

stabilization.

Alternative VI would 

create a landscape 

dominated by native 

communities in a 

variety of seral stages 

and a lower proportion 

of uncharacteristic 

vegetation than 

Alternatives II, III, V, 

and the No Action. 

This would improve 

landscape functions, 

including water 

infiltration, nutrient 

cycling, and soil 

stabilization.

Riparian Vegetation

The No Action 

Alternative has no 

objectives to maintain 

or improve proper 

PFC objectives 

include:

145 miles at PFC

and

PFC objectives 

include:

85 miles at PFC

and

PFC objectives 

include:

183 miles at PFC

and

PFC objectives 

include:

183 miles at PFC

and

PFC objectives 

include:

183 miles at PFC

and

PFC objectives 

include:

183 miles at PFC

and
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Effects

• • • • • •

ES-39

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

functioning condition 

(PFC). 

80 miles toward 

PFC.

140 miles toward 

PFC.

42 miles toward 

PFC.

42 miles toward 

PFC.

42 miles toward 

PFC.

42 miles toward 

PFC.

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 over 

the life of the plan.

Alternative I is the third 

most likely to attain 

habitat condition and 

riparian objectives over 

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 over the 

life of the plan.

Alternative III is the 

fourth most likely to 

attain habitat condition 

and riparian objectives 

over 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 over the life 

of the plan. Alternative 

IV would have fewer 

areas available for 

authorized uses and 

less wildland fire 

infrastructure. Active 

restoration is more 

likely to achieve 

restoration objectives 

and in a shorter 

timeframe than passive 

restoration. 

Alternative V is the 

second most likely to 

attain habitat condition 

and riparian objectives 

over the life of the 

plan. Alternative V 

would have the fewest 

areas available for land 

uses of all alternatives. 

Passive restoration 

would have fewer 

short-term impacts, but 

longer timeframes for 

riparian objectives to 

be met. 

Alternative VI is the 

fourth most likely to 

attain habitat condition 

and riparian objectives 

over the life of the 

plan. The attainment of 

the riparian objectives 

is less likely due to the 

increased wildland fire 

suppression 

infrastructure and 

authorized uses.

Fuels Treatments, Fire Rehabilitation, and Fire Suppression

The lack of 

prioritization for 

wildland fire 

suppression would 

perpetuate the current 

trend of native 

shrubland loss.

Fire management 

priorities would 

promote protection of 

existing and restored 

native shrubland 

communities; however, 

suppression priorities

would likely result in 

continued loss of 

native shrublands.

Fire management 

priorities would 

promote protection of 

native grassland and 

non-native perennial 

communities with no 

prioritization for 

shrubland 

communities. 

Continued loss of 

native shrublands is 

likely. 

Fire management 

priorities would 

promote protection of 

native shrubland, as 

well as native 

grassland and nonnative perennial 

communities and 

would reduce the 

potential for loss of 

existing shrubland 

patches.

Fire management 

priorities would 

promote the protection 

of existing and 

restored native 

shrubland 

communities. 

Suppression priorities 

would not be adequate 

to retain all native 

communities; however, 

native grasslands 

would be relatively 

resilient if burned. 

Fire management 

priorities would 

promote protection of 

existing and restored 

native shrubland

communities. In VMAs 

B, C, and D, 

opportunities would be 

limited for post 

wildland fire 

treatments; therefore, 

Alternative V would 

require more use of 

prescribed fire in these 

VMAs as part of 

vegetation treatments.

Fire management 

priorities would 

promote the protection 

of existing and 

restored native 

shrubland 

communities. 

Suppression priorities 

would not be adequate 

to retain all native 

communities; however, 

native grasslands 

would be relatively 

resilient if burned.

No vegetation 

treatments are 

identified that would 

move vegetation 

toward fuels with a 

lower rate of spread.

If vegetation objectives 

are met, this 

alternative could 

reduce the rate of 

spread on 3% of the 

planning area.

If vegetation objectives 

are met, this 

alternative could 

reduce the rate of 

spread on 6% of the 

planning area.

If vegetation objectives 

are met, this 

alternative could 

reduce the rate of 

spread on 5% of the 

planning area.

If vegetation objectives 

are met, this 

alternative could 

reduce the rate of 

spread on 6% of the 

planning area.

If vegetation objectives 

are met, this 

alternative could 

reduce the rate of 

spread on 3% of the 

planning area.

If vegetation objectives 

are met, this 

alternative could 

reduce the rate of 

spread on 4% of the 

planning area.
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Effects Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

• • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • • • •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

ES-40

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) by Vegetation Type by Vegetation Management Area (VMA) Following Full Implementation of the Plan

VMA A:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Remains 

at FRCC 3. 

VMA B:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3. 

VMA C:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3, 

Basin big 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3, and

Black/low 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3. 

VMA D:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3, 

Basin big 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3, 

Black/low 

sagebrush: 

Declines from 

FRCC 2 to FRCC 

3, and

Mtn. big 

sagebrush: 

Declines from 

FRCC 1 to FRCC 

3.

VMA A:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Remains 

at FRCC 3. 

VMA B:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3. 

VMA C:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3, 

Basin big 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3, and

Black/low 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3. 

VMA D:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3, 

Basin big 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3, 

Black/low 

sagebrush: 

Declines from 

FRCC 2 to FRCC 

3, and

Mtn. big 

sagebrush: 

Declines from 

FRCC 1 to FRCC 

3.

VMA A:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Remains 

at FRCC 3. 

VMA B:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3. 

VMA C:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3, 

Basin big 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3, and

Black/low 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3. 

VMA D:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3, 

Basin big 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3, 

Black/low 

sagebrush: 

Declines from 

FRCC 2 to FRCC 

3, and

Mtn. big 

sagebrush: 

Declines from 

FRCC 1 to FRCC 

3.

VMA A:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Remains 

at FRCC 3. 

VMA B:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3. 

VMA C:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3, 

Basin big 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3, and

Black/low 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3. 

VMA D:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3, 

Basin big 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3, 

Black/low 

sagebrush: 

Declines from 

FRCC 2 to FRCC 

3, and

Mtn. big 

sagebrush: 

Declines from 

FRCC 1 to FRCC 

3.

VMA A:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Remains 

at FRCC 3. 

VMA B:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3. 

VMA C:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3, 

Basin big 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3, and

Black/low 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3. 

VMA D:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3, 

Basin big 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3, 

Black/low 

sagebrush: 

Declines from 

FRCC 2 to FRCC 

3, and

Mtn. big 

sagebrush: 

Declines from 

FRCC 1 to FRCC 

3.

VMA A:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Remains 

at FRCC 3. 

VMA B:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3. 

VMA C:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3, 

Basin big 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3, and

Black/low 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3. 

VMA D:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3, 

Basin big 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3, 

Black/low 

sagebrush: 

Declines from 

FRCC 2 to FRCC 

3, and

Mtn. big 

sagebrush: 

Declines from 

FRCC 1 to FRCC 

3.

VMA A:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Remains 

at FRCC 3. 

VMA B:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3. 

VMA C:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3, 

Basin big 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3, and

Black/low 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3. 

VMA D:

WY sagebrush 

steppe: Declines 

from FRCC 2 to 

FRCC 3, 

Basin big 

sagebrush: 

Remains at FRCC 

3, 

Black/low 

sagebrush: 

Declines from 

FRCC 2 to FRCC 

3, and

Mtn. big 

sagebrush: 

Declines from 

FRCC 1 to FRCC 

3. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Effects

ES-41

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

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

The No Action 

Alternative would result 

in the least 

improvement in habitat 

and proper functioning 

condition (PFC) ratings 

of all alternatives and 

is the least likely to 

attain habitat condition 

and riparian objectives 

over the life of the 

plan. 

Alternative I is the third 

most likely to attain 

habitat condition and 

riparian objectives over 

the life of the plan. 

Alternative II is the 

second least likely to 

attain habitat condition 

and riparian objectives 

over 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 over 

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 

most likely to attain 

habitat condition and 

riparian objectives over 

the life of the plan. 

Active restoration is 

more likely to achieve 

restoration objectives 

and in a shorter 

timeframe than passive 

restoration. 

Alternative V is the 

second most likely to 

attain habitat condition 

and riparian objectives 

over the life of the 

plan. Passive 

restoration would have 

fewer short-term 

impacts, but longer 

timeframes for habitat 

and riparian objectives 

to be met. 

Alternative VI is the 

most likely to attain 

habitat condition and 

riparian objectives over 

the life of the plan. 

Active restoration is 

more likely to achieve 

restoration objectives 

and in a shorter 

timeframe than passive 

restoration.

The No Action 

Alternative would not 

restore habitat for 

wildlife in the mountain 

mahogany/mountain 

shrub and sagebrush 

steppe groups, but 

would maintain the 

highest amount of 

habitat for wildlife in 

the grassland group.

Alternative I would 

restore 328,000 acres 

of shrubland for wildlife 

in the mountain 

mahogany/mountain 

shrub and sagebrush 

steppe groups and 

would have the fourth 

largest reduction in the 

amount of habitat for 

wildlife in the grassland 

group.

Alternative II would not 

restore habitat for 

wildlife in the mountain 

mahogany/mountain 

shrub and sagebrush 

steppe groups, but 

would maintain the 

second highest amount 

of habitat for wildlife in 

the grassland group.

Alternative III would 

restore 241,000 acres 

of shrubland for wildlife 

in the mountain 

mahogany/mountain 

shrub and sagebrush 

steppe groups and 

would maintain the fifth 

largest reduction in the 

amount of habitat for 

wildlife in the grassland 

group.

Alternative IV would 

restore 582,000 acres 

of shrubland for wildlife 

in the mountain 

mahogany/mountain 

shrub and sagebrush 

steppe groups and 

would have the largest 

reduction in the

amount of habitat for 

wildlife in the grassland 

group. 

Alternative V would 

restore 438,000 acres 

of shrubland for wildlife 

in the mountain 

mahogany/mountain 

shrub and sagebrush 

steppe groups and 

would have the third 

largest reduction in the 

amount of habitat for 

wildlife in the grassland 

group. 

Alternative VI would 

restore 464,000 acres 

of shrubland for wildlife 

in the mountain 

mahogany/mountain 

shrub and sagebrush 

steppe groups and 

would have the second 

largest reduction in the 

amount of habitat for 

wildlife in the grassland 

group.

The No Action 

Alternative would 

provide the fourth 

highest amount of 

residual cover for 

wildlife, as it would 

make the fewest acres 

unavailable for 

livestock grazing and 

allocate the fourth 

highest amount of 

vegetation for 

livestock. 

Alternative I would 

provide the third 

highest amount of 

residual cover for 

wildlife, as it would 

make the fifth smallest 

acreage unavailable 

for livestock grazing 

and allocate the fifth 

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 

highest amount of 

residual cover for 

wildlife, as it would 

make the second 

largest acreage 

unavailable for 

livestock grazing and 

allocate the second 

lowest amount of 

vegetation for 

livestock. 

Alternative V would 

provide the most 

residual cover for 

wildlife, as it would 

make the largest 

acreage unavailable 

for livestock grazing 

and allocate the lowest 

amount of vegetation 

for livestock. 

Alternative VI would 

provide the fifth highest 

amount of residual 

cover for wildlife, as it 

would make the forth 

smallest acreage 

unavailable for 

livestock grazing and 

allocate the third 

highest amount of 

vegetation for 

livestock.

The No Action 

Alternative ranks 

seventh for 

Alternative I ranks fifth 

for management of 

special status plants, 

Alternative II would do 

the least to manage for 

special status plants 

Alternative III ranks 

sixth for management 

of special status plants 

Alternative IV-A ranks 

first while Alternative 

IV-B ranks third in 

Alternative V ranks 

second for 

management of special 

Alternative VI ranks 

fourth in maintaining 

existing special status 
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Effects Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

ES-42

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

management of special 

status plants and their 

habitats as it would do 

little to restore potential 

habitat.

due primarily to 

intermediate levels of 

habitat restoration and 

management that 

would reduce firerelated impacts to 

special status plants 

and their habitats and 

prevent impacts due to 

cross-country 

motorized use and 

route densities.

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.

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 would not 

fully protect occupied 

and potential habitats 

for special status 

plants.

maintaining existing 

special status plant 

populations and 

maintaining or 

increasing occupied 

and potential habitats 

due primarily to actions 

that actively restore 

habitats. Management 

is included in 

Alternative IV to 

reduce fire-related 

impacts to special 

status plants and their 

habitats and to prevent 

impacts due to crosscountry motorized

vehicle use and route 

densities.

status plants, due 

primarily to the passive 

restoration and 

noxious weeds and 

invasive plant

treatments, reducing 

acreage and 

increasing the time 

required for 

restoration. Alternative 

V would provide the 

greatest amount of 

active management to 

reduce fire-related 

impacts to special 

status plants and to 

prevent impacts due to 

cross-country 

motorized vehicle use 

and route densities.

plant populations and 

maintaining or 

increasing occupied 

and potential habitats. 

This is due primarily to 

actions that actively 

restore habitats, 

including diversification 

of plant community 

composition to support 

pollinator species and 

management that 

would reduce firerelated impacts to 

special status plants 

and their habitats and 

prevent impacts due to 

cross-country 

motorized use and 

route densities.

The No Action 

Alternative would 

restore the lowest 

amount of habitat for 

sage-grouse and other 

special status species 

in the sagebrush 

group. 

Alternative I would 

restore the third 

highest amount of 

habitat for sage-grouse 

and other special 

status species in the 

sagebrush group.

Alternative II would 

restore the second 

lowest amount of 

habitat for sage-grouse 

and other special 

status species in the 

sagebrush group.

Alternative III would 

restore the fifth highest 

amount of habitat for 

sage-grouse and other 

special status species 

in the sagebrush 

group.

Alternative IV would 

restore the highest 

amount of habitat for 

sage-grouse and other 

special status species 

in the sagebrush 

group.

Alternative V would 

restore the fourth 

highest amount of 

habitat for sage-grouse 

and other special 

status species in the 

sagebrush group.

Alternative VI would 

restore the second 

highest amount of 

habitat for sage-grouse 

and other special 

status species in the 

sagebrush group.

This alternative would 

provide the fourth 

highest amount of 

residual cover for 

sage-grouse and other 

special status species 

in the sagebrush 

group.

This alternative would 

provide the third 

highest amount of 

residual cover for 

sage-grouse and other 

special status species 

in the sagebrush 

group.

This alternative would 

provide the least 

residual cover for 

sage-grouse and other 

special status species 

in the sagebrush 

group.

This alternative would 

provide the second 

lowest amount of 

residual cover for 

sage-grouse and other 

special status species 

in the sagebrush 

group.

This alternative would 

provide the second 

highest amount of 

residual cover for 

sage-grouse and other 

special status species 

in the sagebrush 

group.

This alternative would 

provide the most 

residual cover for 

sage-grouse and other 

special status species 

in the sagebrush 

group.

This alternative would 

provide the fifth highest 

amount of residual 

cover for sage-grouse 

and other special 

status species in the 

sagebrush group.

Livestock Forage

Livestock management 

actions would promote 

uniform use of 

perennial grass and 

dominance by nonnative perennial and 

Livestock management 

actions would result in 

moderate, uniform use 

that would tend to 

reduce structural 

complexity for 

Livestock management 

actions would promote 

uniform use of 

perennial grass and 

long-term dominance 

by non-native 

Livestock management 

actions would result in 

moderate, uniform use 

that would tend to 

reduce structural 

complexity for 

Livestock management 

actions coupled with 

vegetation treatments 

would result in greater 

structural complexity 

for both woody and 

Livestock management 

actions coupled with 

vegetation treatments 

would result in the 

greatest potential for 

species diversity and 

Livestock management 

actions coupled with 

vegetation treatments 

would result in greater 

structural complexity 

for both woody and 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Effects

4

4

ES-43

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

short-stature, earlyand mid-seral grasses. perennial herbaceous 

plants.

perennial and shortstature, early- and midseral grasses.perennial herbaceous 

plants.

herbaceous vegetation 

compared to the No 

Action Alternative and 

Alternatives I, II, and 

III.

structural complexity 

and the highest 

potential for landscape 

stability compared to 

all other alternatives. 

herbaceous vegetation 

compared to the No 

Action Alternative and 

Alternatives I, II, and 

III.

Livestock Grazing

Forage Available for Livestock at Initial and Full Implementation of the Plan based on Areas Available for Livestock Grazing, Vegetation Allocation and Treatments, and 

2006 Vegetation Production Data (for Comparison Purposes Only)

Initial implementation:

200,000 animal unit 

months (AUMs)

Full implementation:

160,000-260,000 

AUMs

Initial implementation:

189,000-259,000 

AUMs

Full implementation : 

For all action alternatives, reflects the impact of vegetation treatments on forage availability.

179,000-245,000 

AUMs

Initial implementation:

350,000-423,000 

AUMs

Full implementation:

362,000-440,000 

AUMs

Initial implementation:

273,000-344,000 

AUMs

Full implementation:

276,000-348,000 

AUMs

Alternative IV-A:

Initial implementation:

94,000-147,000 AUMs

Full implementation:

77,000-122,000 AUMs

Alternative IV-B:

Initial implementation:

97,000-151,000 AUMs

Full implementation:

81,000-127,000 AUMs

Initial implementation:

46,000-93,000 AUMs

Full implementation:

42,000-85,000 AUMs

Initial implementation:

216,000-326,000 

AUMs

Full implementation:

186,000-279,000 

AUMs

The No Action 

alternative has a low 

level of limitation on 

infrastructure for 

livestock management.

Alternative I provides a 

moderate level of 

limitation on 

infrastructure for 

livestock management. 

Same as the No Action 

Alternative.

Same as the No Action 

Alternative.

Alternative IV provides 

a high level of 

limitation on 

infrastructure for 

livestock management. 

Alternative V provides 

the highest level of 

limitation on 

infrastructure for 

livestock management. 

Same as Alternative I.

The level of effort 

required to minimize 

conflicts with livestock 

grazing would be low 

with regard to 

resources and high 

with regard to other 

uses.

The level of effort 

required to minimize 

conflicts with livestock 

grazing would be low 

with regard to 

resources and other 

uses.

Same as the No Action 

Alternative.

A moderate amount of 

effort would be 

required to minimize 

conflicts with livestock 

grazing with regard to 

resources and other 

uses.

Same as Alternative III. The level of effort 

required to minimize 

conflicts with livestock 

grazing would be high 

with regard to 

resources and low with 

regard to other uses.

Same as Alternative I.

Recreation

Areas with focused 

recreation 

management would 

not change (86,000 

acres). However, 

managing the Special 

Recreation 

Management Areas 

The SRMAs in 

Alternative I would 

provide the broadest 

range of activity type 

among all alternatives, 

maintaining or 

enhancing existing 

opportunities. Areas 

The SRMAs in 

Alternative II would 

maintain or enhance 

some existing 

opportunities, while 

minimizing conflict with 

resource uses. Areas 

with focused recreation 

The SRMAs in 

Alternative III would 

maintain or enhance 

existing opportunities. 

Areas with focused 

recreation 

management would 

decrease to 42,000 

The SRMAs in 

Alternative IV would 

maintain or enhance 

existing opportunities. 

Areas with focused 

recreation 

management would 

increase to 190,000 

The SRMAs in 

Alternative V would 

maintain some existing 

opportunities. Areas 

with focused recreation 

management would 

decrease to 5,000 

acres.

Alternative IV would 

designate 20,000 

acres as SRMAs. 

Alternative VI would be 

the only alternative 

designating Extensive 

Recreation 

Management Areas 
Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Effects Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

• • • • • • •

ES-44

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

(SRMAs) without 

clearly established 

boundaries does not 

address the existing or 

anticipated increase in 

demand of the 

recreational resources.

with focused recreation 

management would 

increase to 326,000 

acres.

management would 

decrease to 7,000 

acres.

acres. acres. (ERMAs) (304,000 

acres), which would 

sustain the principal 

recreation activities, 

commensurate with 

management of other 

resources and

resource uses, for 

these areas.

The type, number, and 

setting of motorized 

recreation 

opportunities would be 

maintained.

The type, number, and 

setting of motorized 

recreation 

opportunities would be 

enhanced.

The type, number, and 

setting of motorized 

recreation 

opportunities would be 

limited.

The type, number, and 

setting of motorized 

recreation 

opportunities would be 

enhanced.

The type, number, and 

setting of motorized 

recreation 

opportunities would be 

enhanced.

The type, number, and 

setting of motorized 

recreation 

opportunities would be 

limited.

The type, number, and 

setting of motorized 

recreation 

opportunities would be 

enhanced.

The type, number, and 

setting of nonmotorized recreation 

opportunities would be 

limited.

The type, number, and 

setting of nonmotorized recreation 

opportunities would be 

enhanced.

The type, number, and 

setting of nonmotorized recreation 

opportunities would be 

limited.

The type, number, and 

setting of nonmotorized recreation 

opportunities would be 

maintained.

The type, number, and 

setting of nonmotorized recreation 

opportunities would be 

enhanced.

The type, number, and 

setting of nonmotorized recreation 

opportunities would be 

maintained.

The type, number, and 

setting of nonmotorized recreation 

opportunities would be 

enhanced.

Energy Development

Forty seven percent of 

lands within 2 miles of 

areas rated fair or 

higher for wind 

resources would be 

available for wind 

energy development.

Seventeen percent of 

lands within 2 miles of 

areas rated fair or 

higher for wind 

resources would be 

available for wind 

energy development.

Fifty four percent of 

lands within 2 miles of 

areas rated fair or 

higher for wind 

resources would be 

available for wind 

energy development.

Twenty one percent of 

lands within 2 miles of 

areas rated fair or 

higher for wind 

resources would be 

available for wind 

energy development.

Sixteen percent of 

lands within 2 miles of 

areas rated fair or 

higher for wind 

resources would be 

available for wind 

energy development.

Thirteen percent of 

lands within 2 miles of 

areas rated fair or 

higher for wind 

resources would be 

available for wind 

energy development.

Same as Alternative V.

Availability of Federal Mineral Estate in Potential Oil and Gas Areas for Mineral Leasing (Acres)

Open 188,000

Open with

Constraint 101,000

Closed 18,000

Open 185,000

Open with

Constraint 100,000

Closed 11,000

Open 288,000

Open with

Constraint 18,000

Closed 100

Open 288,000

Open with

Constraint 13,000

Closed 5,000

Open 189,000

Open with

Constraint 83,000

Closed 35,000

Open 209,000

Open with

Constraint 56,000

Closed 41,000

Open 189,000

Open with

Constraint 113,000

Closed 5,000

Availability of Federal Mineral Estate in Potential Geothermal Areas for Mineral Leasing (Acres)

Open 289,000

Open with

Constraint 53,000

Closed 24,000

Open 327,000

Open with

Constraint 25,000

Closed 14,000

Open 349,000

Open with

Constraint 16,000

Closed 700

Open 349,000

Open with

Constraint 12,000

Closed 5,000

Open 331,000

Open with

Constraint 29,000

Closed 8,000

Open 335,000

Open with

Constraint 20,000

Closed 12,000

Open 309,000

Open with

Constraint 50,000

Closed 5,000

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

The No Action 

Alternative would have:

3 ACECs 

designated, 

Alternative I would 

have:

5 ACECs 

designated, 

Alternative II would 

have:

0 ACECs 

designated, 

Alternative III would 

have:

3 ACECs 

designated, 

Alternative IV would 

have:

5 ACECs 

designated, 

Alternative V would 

have:

4 ACECs 

designated, 

Alternative VI would 

have:

4 ACECs 

designated, 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Executive Summary: Summary Comparison of Effects

•

• • • •

• • • • • • •

• •

ES-45

No Action 

Alternative Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI

89,000 acres 

under ACEC 

management, and

25% of lands with 

relevant and 

important values 

would receive 

special 

management 

through ACEC 

designation.

97,000 acres 

under ACEC 

management, and

44% of lands with 

relevant and 

important values 

would receive 

management 

through ACEC 

designation.

0 acres under 

ACEC 

management, and

0% of lands with 

relevant and 

important values 

would receive 

management 

through ACEC 

designation. 

61,000 acres 

under ACEC 

management, and

19% of lands with 

relevant and 

important values 

would receive 

management 

through ACEC 

designation.

333,000 acres 

(Alternative IV-A) 

and 230,000 acres 

(Alternative IV-B) 

under ACEC 

management, and

56% (Alternative

IV-A) and 48% 

(Alternative IV-B) 

of lands with 

relevant and 

important values 

would receive 

management 

through ACEC 

designation.

966,000 acres 

under ACEC 

management, and

61% of lands with 

relevant and 

important values 

would receive 

management 

through ACEC 

designation.

22,000 acres 

under ACEC 

management, and

5% of lands with 

relevant and 

important values 

would receive 

management 

through ACEC 

designation.
Executive Summary: Consultation and Coordination Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

ES-46

Consultation and Coordination

The BLM planning process for the Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS was conducted in accordance with 

the requirements of NEPA, CEQ regulations, and Department of the Interior (DOI) and BLM policies and 

regulations. NEPA and the associated regulatory/policy framework require Federal agencies to involve 

interested publics in their decision-making processes. Title II, Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act directs BLM to coordinate planning efforts with American Indian Tribes, other Federal 

agencies, and State and local governments as part of its land use planning process. 

Chapter 5 describes the consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, 

coordination with Federal, State, and local government agencies; and addition collaborative efforts by the 

BLM throughout the planning process, including the RMP newsletter and website, scoping, public 

meetings, briefings, and presentations. It also discusses public comments received on the Draft RMP/EIS.