CHAPTER 1:
 

INTRODUCTION
 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 1: Table of Contents 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...........

TOC-i 

Chapter 1
 

Introduction
 

Table of Contents

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan 1-1
 

1.1.1 Introduction 1-1
 

1.1.2 Purpose and Need for the Plan 1-1
 

1.2 Planning Area 1-3
 

1.3 Scoping/Issues 1-4
 

1.3.1 Issues Addressed 1-4
 

1.3.2 Issues Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 1-8
 

1.4 Planning Criteria and Constraints 1-11
 

1.5 Planning Process 1-12
 

1.5.1 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs 1-13
 

1.5.2 Collaboration 1-14
 

1.6 Related Plans 1-18
 

1.7 Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 1-19
 

1.7.1 Changes to Chapter 1 - Introduction 1-20
 

1.7.2 Changes to Chapter 2 - Alternatives 1-21
 

1.7.3 Changes to Chapter 3 - Affected Environment 1-21
 

1.7.4 Changes to Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences 1-21
 

1.7.5 Changes to Chapter 5 - Consultation and Coordination 1-22
 

1.7.6 Changes to Appendices 1-22
 

1.7.7 Changes to Maps 1-23
 

List of Tables 

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

List of Figures
 Figure 1-1. BLM Planning Process 1-12
 

Figure 1-2. Statement from the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation 1-15
 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for the Plan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A 

A 

B 

B 

1-1 

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

1.1.1 Introduction 

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

managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The preparation and adoption of an RMP by the 

BLM is a Federal action subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 

NEPA requires that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared for any Federal action that 

may significantly affect the human environment. 

The Jarbidge 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) and 1,497,000 acres of Federal mineral estate. The BLM 

manages 1,463,000 acres of livestock grazing in Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls Counties in Idaho and 

Elko County in Nevada. Table 1-1 provides a summary of land ownership and management in the 

planning area. 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. 

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

Acres 

Surface Ownership 

BLM 1,371,000 

Bureau of Reclamation

Managed by the BLM.
 

100 

Military 115,000 

National Park Service 4,000 

State of Idaho 78,000 

Private/Other 244,000 

Total Acres 1,812,000 

Subsurface Management 

BLM 1,497,000 

Other 315,000 

Total Acres 1,812,000 

Livestock Grazing Management 

BLM 1,371,000 

Saylor Creek Training Range 92,000 

Other 349,000 

Total Acres 1,812,000 

Livestock grazing on the US Air Force (USAF) Saylor Creek Training Range outside of the Exclusive Use Area is
 

managed by the BLM; livestock grazing management in the approved RMP will apply to those acres.
 

1.1.2 Purpose and Need for the Plan

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: 
 

 

 

 

 

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

•

o

o

o

o

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

1-2 

	 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; 

	 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 (BLM, 2001a). 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. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 1: Planning Area 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-3 

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

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

Approximately 250,000 acres north of the Snake River, now in the Four Rivers Field Office, and 

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

Conservation Area, were included in the 1987 RMP, but are no longer part of the Jarbidge Field Office. In 

addition, approximately 13,000 acres were withdrawn in 1998 to create the USAF Juniper Butte Training 

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

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

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

effort due to these changes. 

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

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

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

a total drainage area of approximately 214,000 square miles (FWS, 1995). In July 1993, President Bill 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The planning area is known for its geology of broad, gently rolling plateau lands with deeply incised rivers, 

which provide a variety of scenic values and habitats used by numerous fish, plant, and wildlife species. 

The majority of the planning area supports sagebrush steppe and seeded grasslands, mostly from fire 

rehabilitation projects. Water availability influences the distribution of plant communities and is based on 

the rain shadow effect, distribution of soil types, slope, and aspect. Dry lowland areas support salt desert 

shrub communities, which change to sagebrush steppe with increasing elevation and moisture. At higher 

elevations, juniper, aspen, and mountain mahogany are present. A few areas contain limber pine and 

subalpine fir. Surface water is generally limited to scattered perennial springs and creeks. Creeks are 

typically located in the deeper draws and canyons. 
Chapter 1: Scoping/Issues Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Issues Addressed 

 

 

 

 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

1-4 

1.3 SCOPING/ISSUES 

1.3.1 Issues Addressed 

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

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

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

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

Draft RMP/EIS also identifies management direction and analyzes impacts to topics not identified as 

planning issues. Management direction for these topics is provided as required by BLM Handbook H1601-1, Land Use Planning, and generally does not vary by alternative, except as the topics relate to 

planning issues. 

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

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

comment in the January 2006 Notice of Intent (71 FR 1551). The BLM solicited additional public 

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

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

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

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

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

Interdisciplinary Team. The Analysis of the Management Situation for the Jarbidge Resource 

Management Plan illustrates many of the concerns raised through internal scoping (BLM, 2007a). 

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

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

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

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

major components of the issue; the answer(s) to each question varies by one or more alternatives. 

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

of the key differences between alternatives is presented. 

1.3.1.1 Issue 1: Vegetation (Upland and Riparian) 

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

Concerns Expressed During Scoping 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fire. 

	 Use temporary fences to address long-term management goals. 

	 Specify removal dates for temporary facilities. 

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

	 Suppress fires using Appropriate Management Response. 

	 Designate the planning area for full suppression. 

	 Focus suppression efforts in areas of high ecological value, such as Greater sage-grouse (sagegrouse) habitat, and areas at risk to invasion by noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

	 Aggressively suppress fires in the northern third of the planning area. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 1: Scoping/Issues 

Issues Addressed 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

1-5 

Planning Questions 

	 What types of fuels treatments will be implemented? 

	 Where will fuels treatments be focused? 

	 What role will temporary facilities play in fire rehabilitation? 

	 Which areas will have the highest priority for fire suppression? 

Key Differences between Alternatives 

	 Types and amount of fuels treatments, 

	 Focus areas for fuels treatments, 

	 Constraints on temporary facilities, and 

	 Critical suppression areas. 

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

Concerns Expressed During Scoping 

	 Focus vegetation management on fish and wildlife concerns. 

	 Focus vegetation management on livestock concerns. 

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

	 Restore the entire planning area to its original natural condition. 

	 Improve special status species habitat. 

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

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

	 Maintain a mosaic of riparian functional ratings. 

	 Maintain, restore, or connect sagebrush habitats. 

	 Thin dense sagebrush stands. 

	 Restore areas through active vegetation treatments. 

	 Restore areas by managing uses. 

	 Use only native species in restoration activities. 

	 Consider using non-native species in restoration activities. 

	 Use targeted grazing as a tool in restoration activities. 

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

	 Require rest after restoration activities. 

	 Do not restrict uses after restoration activities. 

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

	 Manage access and uses to benefit commodity use. 

	 Restore annual plant communities and seedings to native communities. 

	 Maintain existing seedings and convert annual plant communities to seedings. 

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

invasive plants. 

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

new invasions. 

	 Maintain sage-grouse habitat at the minimum level required to sustain the species. 

	 Improve, maintain, restore, or connect sagebrush habitats for sage-grouse. 

Planning Questions 

	 What are the desired outcomes for upland and riparian vegetation? 

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

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

	 What types of restoration treatments will be implemented? 

	 Which areas have a high priority for restoration activities? 

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

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

status species and their habitats? 
Chapter 1: Scoping/Issues Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Issues Addressed 

 

 

 

 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

1-6 

Key Differences between Alternatives 

	 Desired outcomes for upland and riparian vegetation, 

	 Tools used to achieve desired outcomes, 

	 Strategies to address noxious weeds and invasive plants, 

	 Priorities for restoration activities, 

	 Use restrictions to benefit fish and wildlife, and 

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

habitat. 

Issue 1c: Livestock Forage 

Concerns Expressed During Scoping 

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

watershed. 

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

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

watershed. 

	 Maintain the amount of forage allocated to wild horses. 

	 Do not allocate forage to wild horses. 

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

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

	 Maintain or improve existing non-native perennial communities. 

	 Remove or restore non-native perennial communities. 

	 Increase the acres of non-native perennial communities. 

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

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

monoculture seedings. 

Planning Questions 

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

	 How will non-native perennial communities be managed? 

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

livestock? 

Key Differences between Alternatives 

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

livestock; 

	 Management for non-native perennial communities; and 

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

1.3.1.2 Issue 2: Livestock Grazing

Concerns Expressed During Scoping 

	 Grazing should be allowed. 

	 Grazing should not be allowed. 

	 Limit domestic sheep grazing. 

	 Allow grazing in the majority of the planning area. 

	 Do not allow grazing in large portions of the planning area. 

	 Eliminate grazing in sensitive or degraded areas. 

	 Eliminate grazing in the least damaged areas. 

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

sheep (bighorn sheep), wild horses, special designations, weeds, riparian areas, and highly erodible 

soil. 

	 Allow grazing in bighorn sheep habitat. 

	 Manage livestock grazing to optimize utilization of forage. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS	 Chapter 1: Scoping/Issues 

Issues Addressed 

 

 

 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

1-7 

	 Manage livestock grazing to protect vegetation and wildlife. 

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

	 Allow grazing year round. 

	 Do not allow grazing year round. 

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

migratory birds. 

	 Remove range infrastructure. 

	 Do not allow more range infrastructure. 

	 Maintain or increase range infrastructure to improve livestock management. 

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

resources, and other uses. 

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

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

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

planning area. 

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

Planning Questions 

	 What areas are available for livestock grazing? 

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

Guidelines for Livestock Management? 

	 What constraints will be placed on livestock grazing? 

	 What range infrastructure will be allowed? 

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

Key Differences between Alternatives 

	 Number of acres available for grazing, 

	 Constraints on livestock grazing management, and 

	 Constraints on range infrastructure. 

1.3.1.3 Issue 3: Recreation 

Concerns Expressed During Scoping 

	 Allow motorized recreation throughout the planning area. 

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

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

	 Emphasize and expand non-motorized recreational opportunities. 

	 Minimize impacts to resources from recreation. 

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

	 Maximize commercial recreation opportunities. 

	 Prohibit organized off-highway vehicle events in the Saylor Creek Wild Horse Herd Management Area 

and special status species habitat. 

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

	 Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) should be designated. 

	 SRMAs should not be designated. 

Planning Questions 

	 Where will motorized recreation be allowed? 

	 What constraints will be placed on recreational activities? 

	 How will special recreation permits (SRPs) be managed? 

	 Where will SRMAs be designated? 

Key Differences between Alternatives 

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

 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Chapter 1: Scoping/Issues Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Issues Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

1-8 

	 Constraints for recreational activities; 

	 Constraints on SRPs; and 

	 SRMAs. 

1.3.1.4 Issue 4: Energy Development

Concerns Expressed During Scoping 

	 Prohibit wind energy projects and utility corridors. 

	 Allow wind energy projects and utility corridors. 

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

	 Allow wind energy projects and utility corridors throughout the planning area. 

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

Planning Questions 

	 How much energy development will be allowed? 

	 Where will energy development be allowed? 

	 What constraints will be placed upon energy development? 

Key Differences between Alternatives 

	 Acres open to energy development, 

	 Location of energy development areas, and 

	 Constraints for energy development activities. 

1.3.1.5 Issue 5: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Concerns Expressed During Scoping 

	 Re-designate existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). 

	 Do not re-designate existing ACECs. 

	 Designate various numbers of new ACECs. 

	 Do not designate new ACECs. 

	 Modify ACEC boundaries. 

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

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

values. 

	 Do not use ACEC designation to protect critical habitat. 

	 Designate ACECs of sufficient size to protect ecosystems. 

	 Do not designate ACECs that limit multiple uses. 

Planning Question 

	 Which existing and nominated ACECs will be designated? 

Key Difference between Alternatives 

	 Designated ACECs. 

1.3.2 Issues Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

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

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

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

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

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

1.3.2.1 Issues beyond the Scope of the Plan

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

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

“authority” or “deference” be granted to Local Sage-Grouse Working Groups; while this is not within the 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 1: Scoping/Issues 

Issues Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

 

 

 

 

 

1-9 

BLM’s authority, the BLM coordinates with the groups and their recommendations were considered when 

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

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

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

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

were requests for action on public lands outside the planning area, on lands not managed by the BLM in 

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

establish management for any of these situations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

addresses travel and transportation management planning at a broader scale, including travel 

designations (i.e., open to cross-country motorized vehicle use, limited to designated routes or ways, 

closed to motorized vehicle use), Travel Management Areas, and criteria for route designation; however, 

the Travel Management Plan will be completed after the signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 

Jarbidge RMP. 

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

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

the context of management actions that will guide future implementation-level actions. 

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

collection or analysis that are not required in or are not relevant to the RMP. 

1.3.2.2 Issues Addressed through Administrative or Policy Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Settlement Agreement. There were also multiple comments regarding management of livestock grazing 

that are addressed by the BLM’s grazing regulations and policies (e.g., ownership of range infrastructure, 

enforcement of grazing permit terms, qualifications for grazing permits, retirement of grazing permits, and 

grazing fees). Other concerns that can be addressed by law, regulation, or policy include: BLM 

procedures and processes, the NEPA documentation required for specific actions subsequent to the 
Chapter 1: Scoping/Issues Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Issues Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-10 

ROD, timeframes for Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation plans, and bonding for 

authorized uses. 

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

regulation, or policy. This includes requests such as making land use plan level decisions through 

implementation-level plans, redefining terminology related to transportation, prescribing specific post-fire 

rest timeframes, and not recognizing valid existing rights. Not addressing wilderness characteristics in the 

RMP would conflict with direction in BLM Handbook H-1601-1. Requests for management of Wilderness 

Study Areas (WSAs); eligible, suitable, or designated Wild and Scenic Rivers; and the Oregon National 

Historic Trail that would be inconsistent with policy were not addressed. Lastly, BLM policy does not allow 

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

1.3.2.3 Issues Addressed through Separate Environmental Analysis

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

China Mountain Wind Energy Project 

The China Mountain Wind Energy Project has been deferred until the Idaho/southwest Montana Subregional Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment and the Jarbidge RMP have been completed. 

Gateway West Transmission Project 

Idaho Power and Rocky Mountain Power submitted a right-of-way (ROW) application to the BLM 

requesting authorization to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission electric transmission lines on 

public lands. The Gateway West Transmission Project with a capacity of 1,500 megawatts, is planned 

from Glenrock, Wyoming to the Hemingway Substation, approximately 20 miles southwest of Boise, 

Idaho. The project is approximately 1,000 miles long and composed of nine 500 kilovolt (kV) segments 

and one 230 kV segment. This applicant-driven project is being analyzed separately from the Jarbidge 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The Final EIS for the Gateway Transmission Project was released on April 26, 

2013. Review of the Gateway West Transmission Project is considering the specific environmental 

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

Gateway West Transmission Project under any of the alternatives analyzed in this document because the 

Final EIS is analyzing the impacts of a range of goals, objectives, allocations, and management actions. 

The revised Jarbidge RMP is not intended to approve or deny any specific proposals. The impact of the 

portion of the Gateway West Transmission Project located within the planning area is not anticipated to 

exceed the limits of the landscape-level analysis included in the range of alternatives included in this Final 

EIS. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS	 Chapter 1: Planning Criteria and Constraints 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-11 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

1.4 PLANNING CRITERIA AND CONSTRAINTS 

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

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

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

planning process; and indicate factors and data that must be considered in making decisions. No new 

planning criteria and/or constraints were identified following the comment period on the Draft RMP/EIS. 

The following planning criteria were considered in developing the Jarbidge RMP: 

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

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

	 The plan will address the requirements for preparation of the Jarbidge RMP as outlined in the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

governments. 

	 The plan will recognize all valid existing rights. 

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

values. 

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

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

activities; and the social and economic values and effects. 

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

amendments. 

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

BLM Handbook H-1601-1. 

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

RMP. 
Chapter 1: Planning Process	 Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

 

 

 

1-12 

•

1.5 PLANNING PROCESS
 

As provided in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the BLM has the responsibility to 

plan for and manage public lands, defined as Federally administered lands and interests in lands, such as 

mineral estate, administered by the BLM. The process for the development, approval, maintenance, and 

amendment or revision of RMPs was initiated under the authority of Section 202(f) of FLPMA and Section 

202(c) of NEPA. BLM planning regulations in 43 CFR 1600 and the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations in 43 CFR 1500 guide the process. Preparation of an RMP and associated EIS involve 

interrelated steps as illustrated in Figure 1-1. 

Figure 1-1. BLM Planning Process 

Prepare to Plan 

Issue Notice of Intent to 

Prepare the RMP and EIS and 

Start Scoping Analyze the Management 

Situation 

Conduct Scoping 

Formulate Alternatives 

Analyze Effects of Alternatives 

Select a Preferred Alternative 

Prepare a Draft RMP and EIS 

Publish Notice of Availability and provide a 

90-day Public Comment Period 

Prepare a Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Publish Notice of Availability, Provide a 30­

Day Protest Period, and Resolve Protests 

Provide a 60-day Governor’s 

Consistency Review Period 

Prepare Record of Decision 

Implement Decision, Monitor 

and Evaluate RMP 

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

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

land within an administrative area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 1: Planning Process 

Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-13 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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

needed to achieve them. 

	 Implementation Plans – An implementation plan is an area- or site-specific plan written to implement 

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

An activity plan usually describes multiple projects and applies best management practices to meet 

land use plan objectives. Examples of an activity plan include habitat management plans and 

allotment management plans. A project plan typically addresses individual projects or several related 

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

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

land use plan decisions. 

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

future management direction for the resources and uses of the public land in the planning area. The RMP 

will also guide lower tiers of the planning process, i.e. implementation plans and implementation 

decisions. 

1.5.1 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs

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

and maintained over time. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS considers various approaches to use, manage, 

and develop, resources in the planning area. The various approaches may represent competing interests 

for the same resource base. Ultimately, the RMP serves to define a series of desired outcomes that 

reflect the concerns and needs of the BLM and the public. 

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

within the current planning area. The RMP covers a broad area; addresses a wide range of programs, 

concerns, and resources; and must, therefore, function at a broad level. Specific actions required to attain 

the goals and objectives in the approved RMP will be accomplished through implementation-level 

decisions. Future implementation plans will use the goals and objectives defined in the approved RMP as 

their starting point. Implementation plans with potential to affect the environment will require analysis in 

compliance with NEPA. 

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

development of the Jarbidge Proposed RMP/ Final EIS: 

	 Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills Management Framework Plan, 

	 Bruneau Management Framework Plan, 

	 Cascade Resource Management Plan, 

	 Cassia Resource Management Plan, 

	 Kuna Management Framework Plan, 

	 Monument Resource Management Plan, 

	 Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan, 

	 Twin Falls Management Framework Plan, and 

	 Wells Resource Management Plan. 

An RMP revision is in progress for the Four Rivers Field Office. The revised Four Rivers RMP will replace 

the Cascade RMP and portions of the 1987 Jarbidge RMP and Kuna Management Framework Plan. 

RMP revisions for the Bruneau, Shoshone, and Burley Field Offices in Idaho are scheduled to start in 

2015. An RMP revision for the Wells Field Office in Nevada is scheduled to start in 2014. These RMP 

revisions will replace several existing land use plans such as the Bruneau, Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills, 

Magic, Sun Valley, and Twin Falls Management Framework Plans and the Cassia, Monument, and Wells 

RMPs. 

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS is consistent with the following Programmatic EISs and Records 

of Decision (RODs): 
Chapter 1: Planning Process Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Collaboration 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-14 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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

Western United States, 2008; 

	 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic EIS Record of 

Decision, 2007; 

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

Corridor on BLM-Administered Lands in the 11 Western States, 2009; and 

	 Record of Decision Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land 

Use Plan Amendments, 2005. 

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) was also considered during the 

preparation of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. ICBEMP was based on Presidential direction to develop a 

scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for managing the 64 million acres of public lands 

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

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

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

about local community social and economic well-being. A Final EIS was published in December 2004. No 

basin-scale ROD has been signed, nor is one expected. 

1.5.2 Collaboration 

1.5.2.1 Tribal Relationships

The Jarbidge 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. The ShoshoneBannock Tribes provided the following policy statements for consideration in the RMP: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to such land sales or transfers.” 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 1: Planning Process 

Collaboration 

 

1-15 

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

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

American Campfire. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes submitted the statement in response to the Jarbidge 

Draft RMP/EIS. 

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

PO Box 219 Owyhee, NV. 89832 

December 16, 2009 

Statement from the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 

Of the Duck Valley Indian ReseiVation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sheep, cougars, and a variety of small game. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

away. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

functions in the culture and history of the Shoshone-Paiute. 
Chapter 1: Planning Process Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Collaboration 

 

 

 

 

1-16 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

1.5.2.2 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. 

Briefings and/or presentations on the Jarbidge RMP were given for the following government agencies or 

inter-governmental groups: 

Elko County Board of Commissioners; 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Jarbidge Ranger District; 

Mountain Home Air Force Base; 

Nevada Division of Wildlife; 

Owyhee County Commissioners; 

Owyhee County Natural Resources Committee; 

Twin Falls County Commissioners; 

Twin Falls County Planning Committee; 

Twin Falls County Planning and Zoning Commission; 

Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council; 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); and 

FWS Bull Trout Recovery Team. 

1.5.2.3 Other Stakeholder Relationships

Briefings and/or presentations on the Jarbidge RMP were given to the following groups at their request: 

“71” Livestock Association; 

Buhl Kiwanis; 

Castleford Men’s Club; 

Idaho ATV Association, Inc.; 

Idaho Congressional Delegation; 

Idaho Conservation League; 

Idaho Rivers United; 

Jarbidge Sage-Grouse Local Working Group; 

Magic Valley ATV Riders, Inc.; 

Magic Valley Trail Machine Association; 

Mayors, Administrators, and City Councils; 

Mid-Snake Resource Conservation and Development Council; 

Southern Idaho Desert Racing Association; 

Three Creek Highway District; 

Treasure Valley Trail Machine Association; 

Twin Falls Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee; 

Twin Falls Monarch Lions Club; 

Twin Falls Optimist Club; 

Twin Falls Rotary Club; and 

The Wilderness Society. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 1: Planning Process 

Collaboration 

1-17 

The Jarbidge RMP mailing list contains thousands of addresses. Organizations, businesses, and 

government agencies on the Jarbidge RMP mailing list are listed in Appendix C. The complete Jarbidge 

RMP mailing list can be found in the administrative record. 

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

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

Idaho). 
Chapter 1: Related Plans	 Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-18 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

1.6 RELATED PLANS 

According to guidance found in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and 43 CFR 

1610, BLM RMPs and amendments shall be consistent, to the extent practical, with officially approved or 

adopted resource-related plans of Tribal, other Federal agencies, State, and local governments so long 

as the guidance and RMPs are compatible. BLM RMPs must also be consistent with the purposes, 

policies, and programs of FLPMA and other Federal laws and regulations related to public lands, 

including Federal and State pollution control laws (43 CFR 1610.3-2 [a]). If these other entities do not 

have officially approved or adopted resource-related plans, BLM RMPs shall, to the extent practical, be 

consistent with those entities’ officially approved and adopted resource-related policies and programs. 

This consistency will be accomplished so long as BLM RMPs incorporate the policies, programs, and 

provisions of public land laws and regulations and Federal and State pollution control laws (43 CFR 

1610.3-2 [b]). 

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS strives for consistency with plans pertaining to lands included in and 

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

Federal Agency Plans 

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

1999; 

	 Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument General Management Plan, 1996; 

	 Humboldt Land and Resource Management Plan, 1986; 

	 Mountain Home Air Force Base Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan, 2012; 

State Agency Plans 

	 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 2005; 

	 Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners State Trust Lands Asset Management Plan, 2011; 

	 Idaho State Department of Agriculture 2011-2016 Strategic Plan; 

	 Idaho State Water Plan, 2012; 

	 Idaho Long Range Transportation Plan, 2010; 

	 Meeting the Challenge: The 2010-2014 Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan; 

	 Idaho Energy Plan, 2012; 

	 Nevada Wildlife Action Plan, 2012; 

	 Nevada State Water Plan, 1999; 

	 Nevada Statewide Transportation Plan – Moving Nevada Through 2028, 2008; 

	 Nevada State Water Plan, 1999; 

	 Nevada State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 2010; 

County Plans 

	 Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan, 2010; 

	 Elko County General Plan of 1971; 

	 Elko County Greater Sage Grouse Management and Conservation Strategy Plan, 2012; 

	 Elmore County 2004 Comprehensive Growth and Development Plan; 

	 Owyhee County Comprehensive Plan, 2002; 

	 Owyhee County Natural Resources Plan, 2009; and 

	 Twin Falls County Comprehensive Plan, 2008. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 1: Changes From the Draft RMP/EIS to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-19 

•

•

o

o

o

o

o

•

1.7 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 set out in 40 CFR 1508.27(a) and (b) and 

BLM’s NEPA regulations and guidance. 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/Final EIS 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 changes resulted in minor modifications to what was considered in 

the Draft RMP/EIS and did not greatly alter the impacts analysis. Further, there were no significant new 

circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns that altered either the alternatives or the 

impacts of the management direction set out in the Draft RMP/EIS. Finally, while Alternative VI (Proposed 

RMP) is a new alternative, it is a compilation of actions and direction set out in one or more of the six 

alternatives considered in the Draft RMP/EIS and thus falls within the spectrum of alternatives that do not 

require supplementation. 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 in 2013. The BLM Idaho Geographic 

Information System data depicting the Jarbidge Field Office administrative boundary incorrectly 

followed the southern extent of China Creek, Player Butte, and Player Canyon allotments in Nevada. 

The Jarbidge Field Office boundary was (incorrectly) mapped this way to reflect Idaho’s grazing 

administration responsibilities in Nevada according to a 1969 Memorandum of Understanding. The 

same error was propagated in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP planning maps and in the Draft RMP/EIS 

maps. This correction decreased acres in the planning area from 1,374,000 to 1,371,000. 

	 The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (OPLMA; Public Law 111-11) resulted in numerous 

changes and those changes were incorporated throughout the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. OPLMA 

was signed by the President on March 30, 2009. Within the planning area, Title I, Subtitle F of this 

act, entitled Owyhee Public Land Management, designated the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness 

and released from consideration for Wilderness areas previously identified as the Bruneau RiverSheep Creek Wilderness Study Area (WSA) and the Jarbidge River WSA that are not contained in 

the newly designated Wilderness. In addition, OPLMA designated four Wild and Scenic Rivers within 

the planning area and contains additional management direction for cultural resources and 

transportation in the portions of the planning area within Owyhee County, Idaho. OPLMA was 

incorporated into the Proposed RMP/Final EIS through the following: 

	 A Wilderness section was added to each alternative in Chapter 2, to the affected environment in 

Chapter 3, and the environmental consequences in Chapter 4. 

	 The Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness was integrated into each alternative in allocations and 

management actions, was included as an existing condition in the Wilderness section; and was 

incorporated into the Chapter 4 environmental consequences analyses. 

	 Former WSAs (Jarbidge River WSA and Bruneau River-Sheep Creek WSA) were removed from 

the alternatives, affected environment, and environmental consequences. 

	 Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers were added into each alternative in allocations and 

management actions; were included as an existing condition in the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

section; and were incorporated into the Chapter 4 environmental consequences analyses. 

	 Travel Management in Owyhee County was incorporated into each alternative in allocations, was 

included as an existing condition in the Transportation and Travel section, and was incorporated 

into the Chapter 4 environmental consequences analyses. 

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

Western United States (2008) was incorporated into each alternative through allocations and 

management actions in the Leasable Minerals section. Best management practices from this Record 

of Decision (ROD) were included in Appendix B. 
Chapter 1: Changes From the Draft RMP/EIS to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Changes to Chapter 1 – Introduction 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-20 

•

•

•

•

•

•

o

o

•

•

•

•

•

•

o

o

•

•

•

•

	 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 

(2009) was incorporated into each alternative through allocations and management actions in the 

Land Use Authorization section. Interagency Operating Procedures from this ROD were included in 

Appendix B. 

	 BLM Manual 6280 – Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and Trails Under Study or 

Recommended as Suitable for Congressional Designation was released in 2012. Under this manual’s 

direction, National Trail Management Corridors were designated for each alternative in the National 

Historic Trails section. Also, throughout the document the term “protective corridors” were changed to 

“protective zones”. 

	 BLM Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands was released in 

2012. The BLM re-inventoried wilderness characteristics in 2012. Results of this inventory have been 

incorporated into allocations and management actions for each alternative in the Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics section. The Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in Alternatives I, IV, 

and V have been re-allocated. The new information on Lands with Wilderness Characteristics was 

also incorporated into the affected environment and environmental consequences. 

	 BLM Manual 6320 – Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use 

Planning Process was released in 2012. Direction under this manual changed the term used in the 

Draft RMP/EIS “non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics” to the term used in the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS “Lands with Wilderness Characteristics”. 

	 BLM Manual 6400 – Wild and Scenic Rivers Policy and Program Direction for Identification, 

Evaluation, Planning, and Management was released in 2012. Direction under this manual changed 

the term used in the Draft RMP/EIS “free-flowing character” to the term used in the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS “free-flowing condition. 

	 BLM Manual 8320 – Planning for Recreation and Visitor Services was released in 2011. 

	 Direction under this manual changed Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) from 

“all public lands outside Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) where structured 

recreational opportunities are not provided” to “designated areas that require special 

management consideration in order to address recreation use, demand, or Recreation and Visitor 

Services program investments”. 

	 The manual also identifies public lands not established as an SRMA or ERMA as lands not 

designated as Recreation Management Areas (non-RMAs). Lands known as ERMAs in the Draft 

RMP/EIS in Alternatives I through V have been changed to non-RMAs in the Recreation section. 

Alternative VI (Proposed RMP) is the only alternative to have SRMAs, ERMAs, and non-RMAs. 

All other alternatives have only SRMAs and non-RMAs. 

	 Vegetation data used in the Draft RMP/EIS was initially mapped in 2006 using field observation, field 

cover data, and 2004 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery. Due to large fires in 

2007, 2010, and 2011, the vegetation data was updated in 2012 for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

using 2011 field observations and 2011 NAIP imagery. 

	 The term “303-d listed streams” was broadened to “water quality impaired streams” throughout the 

document. Stream reaches and miles of streams were updated. 

1.7.1 Changes to Chapter 1 - Introduction 	 Acres were updated in the Introduction. 

	 Description of the planning area was updated. 

	 The Scoping/Issues section was updated to include issues that arose after scoping. 

	 Issues addressed through separate environmental analysis were updated. 

	 Status of the China Mountain Wind Energy Project was updated. 

	 Status of the Gateway West Transmission Project was updated. 

	 Relationship to BLM policies, plans, and programs were updated. 

	 The Collaboration section was re-structured based on internal comments and updated. 

	 Related plans were updated. 

	 Changes from the Draft EIS to Proposed Plan/Final EIS were added. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 1: Changes From the Draft RMP/EIS to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Changes to Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-21 

•

•

•

•

•

•

o

o

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

o

o

o

o

•

•

•

1.7.2 Changes to Chapter 2 - Alternatives 	 Alternative VI (Proposed RMP) was added. Alternative VI was derived from elements of other 

alternatives and incorporates management and resource concerns identified during public review of 

the Draft RMP/EIS, changes in BLM policy and guidance, and recommended clarifications in resource 

goals, objectives, and management actions. 

	 For Alternatives I through V, the current and desired acres of each vegetation sub-group in the 

Upland Vegetation section objectives changed based on updated vegetation data. 

	 The range of animal unit months for each alternative was added, based on updated vegetation data. 

	 Based on comments, the US Air Force Military Operating Area was added as a utility avoidance area 

in the No Action Alternative. The acres listed in the Draft RMP/EIS (852,000) were updated in the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS (983,000). 

1.7.3 Changes to Chapter 3 - Affected Environment 	 In the Soil Resources section, soil data was updated which changed the erosion potential and 

expanded the description for the baseline. 

	 The Upland Vegetation section was updated using the new vegetation data. 

	 A description of how the vegetation data was updated was included. 

	 A new vegetation sub-group called “Recent Burn” was created (based on public comment). 

	 In the Wildlife section, big game crucial winter range was modified. The term “wildlife guilds” was 

changed to “wildlife groups”. 

	 In the Special Status Plants section, slickspot peppergrass changed from an Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) Threatened species to a BLM Type 1 species. Information regarding this change was also 

included. The Special Status plant lists for Idaho and Nevada were updated. 

	 In the Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates section, designated critical habitat for bull trout 

was updated and the Utah valvata snail changed from ESA Endangered species to a Type 2 species. 

	 In the Special Status Wildlife section, Greater sage-grouse (sage-grouse) changed from a Type 2 

species to an ESA candidate species. The Special Status Wildlife lists for Idaho and Nevada were 

updated. Key sage-grouse habitat was updated based on new vegetation data. 

	 In the Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants section, the list of noxious weeds was updated. 

	 In the Wildland Fire Ecology and Management section, fire history was updated to include fires 

through December 2011. 

	 In the Livestock Grazing section, interim grazing measures pursuant to stipulated settlement 

agreements from the Federal District Court were updated. 

	 The criteria for FLPMA Section 203 land sales were added in the Land Use Authorization section. 

	 The Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) section was updated to include nominated 

ACECs in Alternative VI: Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC small boundary and Upper Bruneau Canyon 

ACEC. 

1.7.4 Changes to Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences 	 Alternative VI (Proposed RMP) was added into all analyses. 

	 The Cumulative Impacts section of the Introduction was updated. 

	 Military Use was updated to include discussion of livestock grazing and slickspot peppergrass. 

	 Discussion on Land Use Plans was added. 

	 Wildland Fire and Fire Suppression information was updated to include fire information through 

December 2011. 

	 Land Use Authorizations was updated to include wind energy development in and surrounding 

the planning area. 

	 In the Climate Change section, a discussion on wind energy was added and carbon sequestration 

was included as an indicator. 

	 In the Geologic Features section, impacts to locatable and salable minerals were added. 

	 In the Wildlife section, indicators used for analyses were updated. The term “wildlife guilds” was 

changed to “wildlife groups”. Big game winter range was modified. 
Chapter 1: Changes From the Draft RMP/EIS to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Changes to Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-22 

•

•

•

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

	 In the Special Status Plants section, a discussion on slickspot peppergrass in the Juniper Butte 

Training Range was added. 

	 In the ACEC section, the relevant and important values were updated. 

	 In the following sections, the cumulative impact analysis area was modified or better defined: 

	 Soils, 

	 Water Resources, 

	 Upland Vegetation, 

	 Riparian Areas and Wetlands, 

	 Fish, 

	 Wildlife, 

	 Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates, 

	 Special Status Wildlife, 

	 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, 

	 Livestock Grazing, 

	 Recreation, 

	 Transportation and Travel, 

	 National Historic Trails, 

	 Wild and Scenic Rivers, and 

	 Wilderness Study Areas. 

1.7.5 Changes to Chapter 5 - Consultation and Coordination 	 Coordination with State and Local Government Agencies was updated. 

	 Additional Collaborative Efforts was updated. 

	 The List of Preparers was updated. 

1.7.6 Changes to Appendices 	 The following appendices in the Draft RMP/EIS were removed from the Proposed RMP/Final EIS: 

	 Appendix A: Stipulated Settlement Agreement; 

	 Appendix H: Important Seasonal Period and Habitat Requirements for Selected Plants, Fish, and 

Wildlife Species; 

	 Appendix J: Allotment Selective Management Categories under the No Action Alternative; 

	 Appendix K: Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management;
 

	 Appendix L: Livestock Grazing Permit Renewal Process for the Jarbidge Planning Area; 

	 Appendix Q: Vegetation in the Planning Area as of Fall 2007; 

	 Appendix R: Recent Burn Projected Vegetation Mapping Protocol; and 

	 Appendix S: Fire Regime Condition Class. 

	 Appendix G: “Conservation Plans, Strategies, and Agreements” in the Draft RMP/EIS has been 

changed to Appendix E: Conservation Measures in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

	 Appendix N: BLM Wind Energy Development Program Policies and Best Management Practices in 

the Draft RMP/EIS has been moved to Appendix B: Best Management Practices, Design Features, 

and Operating Procedures in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

	 Appendix O: Lands Available for Disposal under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act by 

Alternative in the Draft RMP/EIS has been modified to Lands Available for Disposal and is Appendix I 

in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

	 Appendix P: Monitoring Implementation and Effectiveness of RMP Decision in the Draft RMP/EIS has 

been moved to Chapter 2. 

	 Appendix T: Current Grazing Preference in the Draft RMP/EIS has been modified and is Appendix J: 

Livestock Grazing Allotment History in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

	 The following appendices in the Draft RMP/EIS are retained in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, but have 

been renumbered: 

	 Appendix B: Specific Mandates and Authority is now Appendix A, 

	 Appendix E: Best Management Practices is now Appendix B, 

	 Appendix I: Cultural Resource Use Categories is now Appendix G, 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 1: Changes From the Draft RMP/EIS to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Changes to Maps 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-23 

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

	 Appendix M: Recreation Management Areas is now Appendix H, 

	 Appendix U: Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Development is 

now Appendix L, 

	 Appendix V: Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Geothermal Development is 

now Appendix M, 

	 Appendix W: Evaluation of Nominated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern is now Appendix 

N, and 

	 Appendix X: Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Determination is now Appendix O. 

	 New appendices in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS include: 

	 Appendix K: Livestock Grazing Allocation Process, 

	 Appendix P: Upland and Riparian Area Reference Areas, and 

	 Appendix Q: Response to Comments from the Draft RMP/EIS. 

1.7.7 Changes to Maps 	 Maps from the Draft RMP/EIS that are included in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS have been modified 

to depict the corrected administrative boundary. 

	 Maps from the Draft RMP/EIS that are included in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS have been modified 

to depict only BLM-managed lands. 

	 The following maps were added for Alternative VI (Proposed RMP): 

	 Potential Reference Areas; 

	 Wildlife Tracts; 

	 Fire Suppression Areas; 

	 Visual Resource Management Classes; 

	 Areas Available and Unavailable for Livestock Grazing; 

	 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas; 

	 Travel Designations; 

	 Travel Management Areas; 

	 ROW Avoidance Areas; 

	 Expected Wind Development; 

	 Land Tenure Zones; 

	 Leasable, Salable, and Locatable Mineral Allocations; and 

	 Proposed ACECs. 

	 The following maps from the Draft RMP/EIS were not included in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS: 

	 Mineral Estate Management in the Jarbidge Planning Area and 

	 Areas within 1 Mile of Water Developments. 

	 New maps added to Proposed RMP/Final EIS include: 

	 Cumulative Impact Analysis Area for Water Resources, Riparian Areas and Wetlands, Fish, and 

Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates; 

	 Cumulative Impact Analysis Area for Wildlife; 

	 Cumulative Impact Analysis Area for Sage-grouse; 

	 Bighorn Sheep Habitat and Distribution; 

	 Cumulative Impact Analysis Areas for Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, Recreation, 

Transportation and Travel, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness Study Areas; 

	 Cumulative Impact Analysis Areas for Livestock Grazing; and 

	 The Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness and Lower Salmon Falls Creek WSA. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank