Multiple users: 1. Conservation users—knowing that the resource is functioning properly from an economic biological, and social perspective. 2. Hunters and sportsmen—improve and enhance wildlife habitat and maintain access to hunting. 3. Livestock Grazers—sustainable grazing, and profitable grazing based business. 4. Off-road vehicle users and recreationalists—maintain access to roads and recreational opportunities. How the multiple-use resource management plan was developed The draft RMP was reviewed by representatives of the multiple users. As the alternatives were compared, the following criteria were applied in developing this proposed action to be implemented in the resource management plan (hereinafter referred to a “multiple-use plan”). The criterion was as follows: 1. The preferred alternative (alternative IV) was chosen where ever acceptable to all users. Priority was given to the preferred alternative. 2. Where the preferred alternative was unacceptable, the users would select an alternative as written and reviewed by the BLM that was more acceptable to their use. 3. Where no alternative was acceptable or if it was common to all actions, some minor changes were made. In all of these situations, a detailed reason is given often with third party verification. As the RMP was reviewed, we noted there were several common goals and objectives between the multiple users. For instance, reduction of size and intensity of wildfire is high priority for all groups, although each group has a specific reason why it may be important to them. This theme is common throughout the various issues in the RMP, and this notion will be further explored in the executive summary. General goals The general goal of the multiple-use plan is: To ensure long term, sustainable multiple-use of the resource. This includes the sustainable management of all of the resources listed in the RMP (air and atmospheric values, geologic features, soil resources, water resources, vegetation communities, fish and wildlife, special status species, noxious weeds and invasive species, wildland fire, wildhorses, paleontological resources, cultural resources, and visual resources). This resource management plan is set up in such a way that meeting this goal will enhance the resource uses (livestock grazing, recreation, transportation and travel). General Objectives In meeting our goals of long term, sustainable multiple-use, our objectives will focus on the four categories of users as defined in this multiple-use plan: Conservation users— The conservation user is the most passive of users. They are not affiliated with environmental activist groups and may enjoy the resource from a distance. But they are impacted indirectly from an economic, and social perspective and want a biological resource sustainable enough to support these societal activities. Conservation users are not consumptive users. They want to know that the resource is there and that it is functioning properly. Traditionally, preservationists, in contrast to conservation users, have approached the resource from the perspective of Clementsian succession. Given the opportunity, the land will undergo succession and eventually reach a climax community. Sage brush steppe is conceivably the climax community envisioned for the majority of the Jarbidge Field Office. According to Clementsian succession, if the various stressors are removed (grazing, recreation, and other commercial uses) natural restorative effect would push the ecology of the resource to a climax community of native sagebrush steppe. This type of succession makes no consideration for a wide variety of impacts that can irreversibly change a landscape. The conservation user described in this multiple-use plan takes a substantively different tact. Our conservation user wants to know that the resource is there and is functioning properly in the context of a biological system, an economic system, and a social system. As a biological system, the conservation user focuses on Stable State Theory as opposed to focusing on Clementsian succession. In other words, the Stable State Theory expresses the reality of a wide variety of stable communities for a particular landscape, as opposed to a single potential climax community. A landscape will maintain its current parameters until a disturbance moves the landscape to a new and potentially different stable state (Briske et. al. 2003; Westoby et. al. 1989). The best localized example of this is VMA A. The agency recognizes that removal of stressors will not return the landscape to a climax community as dictated by Clementsian succession. It would instead remain in the stable state of an annual grass community. The draft resource management plan, however, does not recognize the impracticality of achieving a climax community in VMA D. The conservation user in this multiple-use plan recognizes the irreversible impacts of fire, introduced plant and animal species (cattle, sheep, domestic and feral horses, pronghorn, and elk), and noxious and invasive plant species. The conservation user will also consider economic systems. BLM disbursements coming out of the planning area in Fiscal Year 2006 include approximately $500 in SRPs, $223,500 in grazing receipts, $3,500 in mineral material sales, and $46,500 in land use authorizations and ROW collections. Total collections from grazing on BLM-managed land in Idaho were approximately $1.6 million in fiscal year 2006. The planning area represented nearly 15% of that total. Revenues from livestock grazing fees collected within the planning area are substantial in relation to other areas of the State (Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) pg 3-95). The Draft EIS notes the amount of PILT monies disbursed to the four counties (Elko, Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls) but does not examine how much of that money returns to the Jarbidge Field Office. The conservation user is also concerned with the local economy. According to the draft resource management plan, livestock grazing, recreation, and wind energy contribute varying levels of economic activity to the four county area. The economic studies are inadequate to determine economic impacts within the Jarbidge Field Office itself. Intuitively, within the Field Office, virtually every dollar generated is directly tied to use of the resources within the area. Additionally, the economic data is presented simply as percentages of the total four county area with no consideration for the population differences and no context of statistical significance to the four county area. Finally, the conservation user will consider the viability of the social systems surrounding the resource. First, the communities in the Jarbidge Field Office are small and fragmented. Preserving a ranching heritage and recreational opportunities is important for the conservation user (DEIS pg 4-756). A primary objective for maintaining the viability of these small communities is for the open space and access. While the conservation user may never use the resource, from a social perspective, they want to know that it is there and functioning properly for others and future generations. This includes opportunity for livestock grazing, a diverse wildlife population, and open access for hunting and recreation. The conservation user will also focus on maintaining soils, upland vegetation, and proper functioning riparian areas and waterways. In summary, the conservation user is the least consumptive of users. They do not belong to environmental activist groups and may not venture into the Field Office. But they are impacted indirectly from an economic, and social perspective and want a biological resource sustainable enough to support these societal activities. Hunters and Sportsmen— Hunters and sportsmen will use the Jarbidge Field Office as a location for hunting. Hunters require habitat for upland game and motorized access to the majority of the Field Office. The development of habitat for upland game also augments the habitat of special status species. Plant species that are necessary for upland game are also important for these special status species. Hunters and Sportsmen have two primary objectives with the implementation of this multiple-use plan: (1) viable habitat to support wildlife and, (2) access to hunting. As to viable habitat to support wildlife, Hunters and sportsmen are interested in a population of upland game for hunting. Hunters and sportsmen recognize the critical role that the BLM has in managing the Jarbidge Field Office for upland game. This resource management plan has a goal of increasing the acres of shrub/grass in the Field Office. This would provide habitat critical for supporting viable game herds for hunting. It is important to acknowledge that this same habitat will be used by the more sensitive special status species in the Field Office. Second, hunters and sportsmen want access to hunting opportunities. To understand the access that hunters require, it is important to understand the ways hunting has changed since the last RMP was implemented. Today, hunters move throughout the Field Office almost exclusively with motorized vehicles. To enable this, this multiple-use plan prescribes the continued opening of all roads on map 58. This proposed action encourages the open use of existing roads to enable hunting and other recreation. This proposed action also discourages special designations that will block access to all users. In summary, hunters have an interest in the Jarbidge Field Office as a location for hunting. To be a viable area for hunting, hunters require habitat for upland game and motorized vehicle access to the majority of the Field Office. It is important to note that the development of habitat for upland game is not at the detriment of special status species. Plant species that are important for upland game are also necessary for these special status species. Livestock Grazers— Livestock grazers utilize the Field Office as a sustainable source of livestock forage. Livestock grazers have an interest in protecting the grazing resource. The multiple-use plan provides an opportunity for livestock grazers to maintain a profitable grazing based business. Livestock Grazers have two primary objectives with the implementation of this multiple- use plan: (1) a long-term, sustainable grazing resource, and (2) the opportunity for a profitable grazing business. As to long-term sustainable grazing resource, the Jarbidge Field Office has an abundance of grass with the recent fires and rehabilitation. This multiple-use plan recognizes this reality and encourages the use of this available forage. The maintenance or increase in grazing in the Jarbidge Field Office will encourage the growth and development of shrubs in grasslands. Shrubs will face less competition from grazed grasses and will thrive in these conditions. The greatest threat to the shrub component is wildfire. Grazing at levels consistent with this multiple-use plan will reduce the build up of fine fuels and will lessen the severity of wildfires. The reestablishment of shrubs (sagebrush in particular) will be enhanced through grazing in this multiple-use plan. In addition to developing a shrub landscape, livestock grazing is a consumptive sustainable use in the Jarbidge Field Office. The multiple use alternative preserves the grazing resource that has been developed since before BLM management. Twenty to 25% of the Field Office is non-native perennial seedings ideal for livestock grazing and certain wildlife species (DEIS pg 3-15,16). Additionally, 8 to 9 % of the Field Office is annual vegetation which can be utilized as forage for livestock (DEIS pg 3-15,16). The Field Office has 2,000 miles of fence line to manage the livestock herds in this area (DEIS pg 3-64). There is over 900 miles of water pipelines in the Field Office (DEIS pg 3-64). Map 22 on page M-23 of the DEIS shows the watering system built and maintained by livestock permittees in the Field Office. Where many locations in the Field Office were unusable for livestock grazing or only for wet season use, today this desert is accessible to livestock and wildlife grazing any time of the year because of the development of these water systems. This Field Office, as evidenced by its development, is ideally suited to livestock grazing and presently has the range infrastructure and available forage to support grazing at current levels and even higher levels in some locations. Because of these systems, livestock herds can be dispersed, grazing can be targeted, and if properly managed, sensitive issues can be managed with grazing. This multiple-use plan focuses management on maintaining the grazing resource and uses grazing to develop more habitat for other resource uses (wildlife, special status species). Second, livestock grazers are interested in the opportunity for a profitable grazing business. SE-CA-G-1 on Page 2-241 of the DEIS states, “management of the resources and uses of public lands would provide social and economic benefits to residents, businesses, visitors, and future generations.” The preferred alternative as analyzed by the BLM would dramatically reduce AUM’s in the resource area. While AUM allocation is not the only factor in ranch profitability, it is a primary factor as indicated in the economic analysis. The DEIS also shows the economic impacts on the surrounding four county area. While the BLM should be applauded for studying the impacts on the surrounding area, further attention should be focused on the economic activity in the Jaribidge Field Office. In the four county area, the NAICS grouping of Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting ranks second in terms of output (11%), third in employment (11%), and fourth in income (7%) (DEIS 4-771). There is remarkably (and erroneously) no data presented in the DEIS, but within the Field Office the Cattle Ranching and Farming subset is intuitively first in terms of output, first in employment, and first in income. There are no retail services according to DEIS pg 4-76; there is no mining and few future prospects (DEIS pg 4-771); all federal, state, and county offices are located outside of the planning area (though there are a few local governmental services within the planning area i.e. school, road districts). Economic impacts from livestock grazing that are deemed negligible in the “four county area” (i.e. 1 to 5 % decrease in output, employment, and income with the BLM’s preferred alternative (DEIS table 4-388)) have a significant impact on the economy in the Jarbidge Impact Area. Page 4-784 of the DEIS states “Ideally, these impacts could be quantified for and presented relative to the economy of the Jarbidge Impact Area; however, economic data are not available for that scale of analysis.” A lack of data should not absolve the agency from considering the economic impacts of their decisions on livestock grazing which is the primary economic driver within the Jarbidge Impact Area. In summary, livestock grazers have an interest in the Field Office as a sustainable source of livestock forage. Livestock grazers support the multiple-use alternative because it protects the grazing resource. This multiple-use plan would provide an opportunity for livestock grazers to maintain a profitable grazing based business. Off-road Vehicle Users and Recreationalists— The off-road vehicle user and recreationalist are interested in access and opportunities for non-motorized and motorized recreation. This multiple- use plan affords management actions that will maintain access and enhance all types of recreation. Off-road vehicle users and recreationalists have two primary objectives with the implementation of this multiple-use plan: (1) access to roads throughout the resource area and (2) opportunities for non-motorized and motorized recreation throughout the resource area. First, as to access to roads throughout the Field Office, this multiple-use plan was created with the bias that all roads are open unless there is a credible reason to close a road to protect a particular resource. As written the DEIS preferred alternative has a lower threshold for closing roads. This multiple-use plan also encourages managers to look for alternatives to road closure, consider how closures affect access to other areas, and seek ways to mitigate closures with nearby alternative routes. This multiple-use plan recognizes the need for resource protection, but it encourages managers to use more innovative and creative solutions than closing the resource use of transportation. Second, the off-road vehicle users and recreationalists want opportunities for non- motorized and motorized recreation throughout the Jarbidge Field Office. The draft resource management plan takes steps to minimize user conflicts in particular between motorized and non- motorized recreation. It establishes TMA’s and SMRA’s that focus the type of recreation in these areas. The agency should be applauded for their efforts to create a better recreational opportunity, but these opportunities should not exclude use. The draft resource management plan does not express empirically the numbers of user conflicts from 1987 to 2007. Is there no data to show the amount of user conflict or is there no user conflict? Recreational opportunities abound for all types of recreational users and this multiple-use plan provides recreational opportunities dispersed throughout the Field Office without excluding users except in designated wilderness areas. The BLM’s preferred alternative also includes some restrictions that will arbitrarily limit access and create safety concerns. This multiple-use plan affords more opportunity for safe and free recreation. Appendix B discusses the specific reasons for eliminating special designations in the Field Office, but a further reason is to allow responsible recreation in areas that would be administratively closed. Several management actions were modified to ensure the safe participation by users. For example, in the multiple-use plan, camping is allowed within 300 feet of a designated route. The BLM’s preferred alternative allows 25 feet which is close enough to traffic to be dangerous. In summary, the off-road vehicle user and recreationalist require access and opportunities for non-motorized and motorized recreation. This multiple-use plan affords management actions that will maintain access to all types of recreation. Threats to multiple uses This multiple-use plan recognizes three primary threats to continued uses in the resource area: 1. Wildfire 2. Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species 3. Administrative Closures or Curtailments Wildfire Between 1987 and 2007, 1,394,000 acres have burned in the Jarbidge Field Office (DEIS pg 3-52). The landscape has changed dramatically and, in many cases, irreversibly. Wildfire has devastating impacts to all users. Hunters and sportsmen lose habitat, access, and hunting opportunities following a fire. Livestock grazers lose available forage and use of resource for several grazing seasons. Recreationalists often lose access due to road closures and lose the aesthetic quality of their experience. With devastating wildfires, the resource is not functioning as a biological, economic, or social system and would impact conservation users. This multiple- use plan takes a holistic approach to wildland fire. First, this multiple-use plan relies heavily on alternative three for fire suppression efforts. Alternative three recognizes the dangerous nature of wildfire in the Jarbidge and suppression is aggressive. The highest priority for any fire plan should be safety, but the second priority should be extinguishing the fire. In this multiple-use plan, priority is not spread so far as to be diluted. Priority is directed to WUI’s and the protection of adjacent people, property, and structures. This multiple-use plan enables the necessary infrastructure to lessen response time and opens a full range of options for suppression. However, suppression is only one piece of this plan. This multiple-use plan focuses on grazing at or near historic use for the reduction of fine fuels to lessen the intensity of fire. To understand the impact grazing has on the nature of wildfire, it is important to understand the historical relationship between grazing and fire. Historic livestock grazing patterns influenced fuel loads and fire frequency in sagebrush plant communities. The grass and forb understory of Great Basin and Intermountain sagebrush rangelands was significantly depleted early in the 20th century (Vale 1974, Burkhardt 1996). Herbaceous forage and grazing capacity had decreased by 60 to 90% by the 1930s (Miller and Eddleman 2001). The greatest effect of excessive grazing pressure on western rangelands was the removal of fine fuels that previously provided for the ignition and expansion of wildfires (Miller and Rose 1999). In the 32 year period of 1880-1912, there were only 44 recorded fires in the Great Basin, accounting for less than 12,000 total acres of burned rangelands (Miller and Narayanan 2008). This is in contrast to the Jarbidge Field Office alone which burned an average of 66,000 acres annually from 1987 to 2007 (DEIS pg 3-52). Historically, shrublands and woodlands expanded and the abundance of woody plants (cover) on Great Basin and Intermountain rangelands increased in response to: (1) The absence of wildfire (Miller et al. 1994, Burkhardt 1996 Miller and Eddleman 2001), (2) The suppression of competition from herbaceous forage plants through preferential grazing of grasses and forbs (Miller et al. 1994; Loeser et al. 2007), (3) Increases in sagebrush cover and reductions in the herbaceous understory also provided safe sites for juniper establishment and expansion into sagebrush communities (Miller and Rose 1999), (4) The expansion of western juniper in South- Central Oregon is chronologically correlated with the introduction of livestock (Miller and Rose 1999). This multiple-use plan has a general objective of reestablishing a shrub component into current grasslands. Research has shown the effectiveness in reaching this objective through active livestock grazing. Historic grazing levels can be contrasted to contemporary grazing systems. In the 1940s livestock grazing management programs were implemented on federally owned rangelands with the explicit objective of improving native, perennial grass communities (Stoddart et al. 1975). Managed grazing systems that prescribed annual rest, seasonal deferments and reduced stocking rates were widely implemented over the last 50 years (Krueger et al. 2002). Herbaceous fuel loads generally increased to the point that wildfires became common and sagebrush and other non-sprouting shrubs were effectively eliminated from many areas (Young and Blank 1995). This same pattern is evident in the Jarbidge Field Office. Resource managers would have the ability to control fuel loads with the grazing levels and targets in this multiple-use plan. There are several scientifically viable mechanisms and management to modify fuel loads with grazing. First, grazing reduces herbaceous biomass and fuel load. Livestock grazing during the growing season reduces biomass (Beck and Mitchell 2000, Blackmore and Vitousek 2000). Grazing reduced fine fuels and fire frequency in ponderosa pine forests (Belsky and Blumenthal 1997). Grazing of introduced grasses is an essential component of fire risk management on the island of Hawaii (Blackmore and Vitousek 2000). Zimmerman and Neuenschwander (1984) concluded that livestock grazing reduced the fire ignition potential and spread in Douglas-fir forests. These may not be site specific examples, but the principle remains the same. The multiple-use plan uses strategies to reduce herbaceous fuel loads by maintaining or increasing the forage available to livestock grazing. Late season grazing effectively reduces biomass (Anderson and Frank 2003). Late season grazing reduces residual biomass and reduces fire hazard during the subsequent spring/summer (Launchbaugh 2008). Fine fuel loading that was less than 3000 –3500 lbs/acre was most useful in controlling wildfire (Bunting et al. 1987) Grazing as described in this multiple-use plan also reduces the continuity of fuels. Livestock grazing can create fuel load heterogeneity across a landscape and decrease the risk of large wildfires (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001, Kerby et al. 2006). In the tallgrass prairie of Kansas, fire modeling suggests that fires are smaller and have more complex shapes in heterogeneous landscapes with varying biomass attributes (Kerby et al. 2006). Grazing can produce patchy burn patterns in continuous fuels (Bunting et al. 1987). Patchy burn patterns are desirable from both wildlife habitat (cover) and rangeland restoration (seed source) perspectives. Data from a post-fire examination of the Murphy Complex fire also demonstrates the need for grazing as described in the multiple-use plan. Under the extreme weather and fuel conditions in the Murphy Complex, grazing levels probably had little effect on the fires' behavior. However, modeling shows that in more moderate conditions, grazing can reduce the rate of spread and the intensity of fires more so in grasslands than in shrublands. According to the baseline data in table 3-6 on page 3-16 of the DEIS, 65% of the Field Office currently constitutes this grasslands description. Livestock grazing that reduces annual carry-over of dead herbaceous fuels in grasslands can reduce rate of spread and fireline intensity. Contrast lines observed in the Murphy Complex were mostly due to distinct changes in the types or amounts of pre-fire vegetation. In a few cases, grazing was the distinct variable across a contrast line (Launchbaugh et. al. 2008) Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species Noxious weeds and invasive species are a threat to multiple use for several reasons. These species reduce the amount of wildlife habitat and the amount of available forage for livestock grazing. Road closures may be enacted to prevent the spread of noxious weeds. Additionally, a resource that is dominated by noxious weeds and invasive species is not functioning properly as a biological, or economic system. The multiple-use plan draws heavily on alternative III instead of the BLM’s preferred alternative because of the more aggressive approach to combating noxious weeds. This is similar to the approach taken with the suppression aspects of wildfire. Alternative III recognizes the damaging aspects of noxious weeds and affords a management approach that will better reduce the number and size of noxious weed infestations. BLM should be commended for some of the innovative and collaborative management actions to combat noxious weeds in alternative III. Invasive species are deferred to a large degree to the upland vegetation and livestock grazing sections in the BLM’s preferred alternative and in the multiple-use plan. A discussion of cheatgrass and grazing will help the reader of this summary better understand how the multiple- use plan will control this particular invasive species. It is also important to understand the impacts annual grasses have on the nature of wildfire. Cheatgrass is a dominant factor in the nature of wildfire. Cheatgrass has altered the timing, frequency, extent and impact of wildfires in the Great Basin and Intermountain regions (Young et al. 1987). The risk of fire ignition is closely correlated with the abundance of cheatgrass. With greater than 45% cover of cheatgrass, the ignition risk was 100%. Conversely, with less than 13% cover, the ignition risk drops to 46% (Link et al. 2006). Dominance of perennial grasses and native shrubs are generally lost when the fire free interval is less than 5 years (Peters and Bunting 1994). The multiple-use plan identifies and manages interactions among livestock grazing and cheatgrass. The timing and amount of precipitation determine the response of cheatgrass to grazing treatments (Young et al. 1987 and Loeser et al. 2007). Spring grazing of cheatgrass at 80-90% utilization levels reduced flame lengths on fall prescribed burns by over 90% (Call et al. 2007). Well-timed and closely controlled spring grazing (early boot stage) can suppress cheatgrass (Tausch et al. 1994b, Mosley and Roselle 2006). Livestock grazing at appropriate times and levels will control the damaging effects of wildfire in annual grasslands. Administrative Closures or Curtailments Perhaps the greatest threat to multiple use in the resource area is administrative closures or curtailments. This multiple-use plan aggressively counters closures due to arbitrary designations. Appendix B explains the redundant or counter productive nature of suggested designations for the Jarbidge Field Office. Special designations as written in the draft resource management plan are more about arbitrarily closing areas to multiple use than about protecting a specific resource value. This multiple-use plan manages grazing, hunting, and recreational use so that all of these activities can be engaged in while making site specific adjustments to protect and enhance the viability of a special resource. Equally damaging to multiple use is administrative curtailments. Often the curtailment is inadvertent. For instance, a road closure on public lands can effectively remove recreational and hunting opportunities in a specific area. This multiple-use plan recognizes the need for site specific resource protection, but encourages land managers to be more creative than putting up a closure sign that will only be observed by responsible users. Keeping the roads open will ensure hunting and recreation of all types will continue throughout the Field Office The draft resource management plan has demonstrated a sustainable forage base in the Field Office. The multiple-use plan simply ensures livestock grazers continued use of the available forage. The multiple-use plan makes no demand to increase the amount of grass in the Field Office. In fact, the multiple-use plan encourages reestablishment of a shrub component. The multiple-use plan simply affords livestock grazers the opportunity to graze the available forage resource. Opportunities from multiple-use plan. This multiple-use plan recognizes three primary opportunities from the implementation of this proposed action in the Jarbidge Field Office: 1. Economic Activity in the Jarbidge Impact Area 2. Open space 3. Long term, sustainable use Economic Activity in the Jarbidge Impact Area The economic analysis focuses on the four county area, and the economic impacts are significant as demonstrated in the DEIS. However, greater focus needs to be placed on the Jarbidge Impact Area. In an area where the federal government is the dominant land managing entity, the actions on the rural communities within and surrounding the Jarbidge Field Office should be a primary consideration. Resource use is the dominant economic driver in the Jarbidge Impact Area. The multiple-use plan ensures access to a wide variety of resource uses that are economically viable. The multiple-use plan will best maintain the economic viability of the Jarbidge Impact Area. Open space Historically, the open space issue has been about preventing urban encroachment into currently open areas. As agricultural land become economically unviable, market forces will shift landscapes from open to more urbanized area. This may not accurately describe the open space in the Jarbidge Field Office. There is very little threat of urban encroachment in the Field Office, especially on federally managed lands. However, it is important to ask a philosophical question: is a landscape truly open space if there is limited access to that area? Does open space include keeping these areas accessible to the public? The multiple-use plan eliminates all special designations that will inhibit use of the wide ranging open space in the Field Office. Read appendix B for a more detailed explanation of why the special designations are unnecessary. Long term, sustainable use The multiple-use plan focuses management on maintaining long-term sustainable use. The users in the Jarbidge Field Office have sustainability as a primary focus. Hunters want their families to enjoy hunting into the future as evidenced in the DEIS, “The most important motivation for mule deer hunters in the IDFG Magic Valley Region is “doing something with family” (DEIS 4-757). The DEIS states that “the identities and ways of life of ranchers in the planning area are deeply connected with these lands, and they take great pride in the care that they and their ancestors have devoted to these lands (DEIS pg 4-756). Recreationalists want a quality experience as defined as “a quality recreation experience is a result of the availability of the desired activity and the setting in which that activity occurs” (DEIS 4-757). There is no doubt that all user groups are interested in the long-term, sustainable use of the resource. The multiple-use plan does not use restrictions, closures, or arbitrary designations to create a false sense of sustainability. The multiple-use plan encourages creativity and active management to use and conserve the varied resources in the Jarbidge Field Office. This approach to land management does not conform to the goals of limiting uses in the Field Office, but that is not a stated goal in the draft resource management plan. The multiple-use plan ensures access, use, and conservation in a long-term sustainable manner. Works Cited Anderson, M.T. and D.A. Frank. 2003. Defoliation effects on reproductive biomass: Importance of scale and timing. Journal of Range Management 56:501-516. Beck, J.L. and D.L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:993-1002. Belsky, A.J. and D.M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and soils in upland forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology 11:315-327. Blackmore, M. and P.M. Vitousek. 2000. Cattle grazing, forest loss, and fuel loading in a dry forest ecosystem at Pu'u Wa'a Wa'a Ranch, Hawaii. Biotropica 32:625-632. Briske, D.D., S.D. Fuhlendorf, and F.E. Smeins. 2003. Vegetation dynamics on rangelands: a critique of the current paradigms. Journal of Applied Ecology. 40:601-614 Bunting, S.C., B.M. Kilgore, and C.L. Bushey, 1987. Guidelines for prescribed burning sagebrush-grass rangelands in the northern Great Basin, USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-231. Ogden, UT. Intermountain Research Station. 33p. Burkhardt, J.W. 1996. Herbivory in the Intermountain West. Station Bulletin 58. Moscow, ID. 18p. Call, C., N. McCoy and N. Devoe . 2007. Using cattle as fuel reduction agents in annual and perennial grass stands in northern Nevada, Final Report: Joint Fire Science Program, 04-2-1-77, 5p. Fuhlendorf, S.D. and D.M. Engle. 2001. Restoring heterogeneity on rangelands: ecosystem management based on evolutionary grazing patterns. BioScience 51:625-632. Kerby, J.D., S.D. Fuhlendorf and D.M. Engle. 2006. Landscape heterogeneity and fire behavior: scale-dependent feedback between fire and grazing processes. Landscape Ecology 22:507-516. Krueger, W.C., M.A. Sanderson, J.B. Cropper, J.B., M. Miller-Goodman, C.E. Kelley, R.D. Pieper, P.L. Shaver, M.J. Trlica. 2002. Environmental impacts of livestock on grazing lands. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Issue Paper 22. Ames, Iowa. Launchbaugh, K.L., B. Brammer, M.L. Brooks, S.C. Bunting, P. Clark, J. Davison, M. Fleming, R. Kay, M. Pellant, D. Pyke, and B. Wylie. 2008. Interactions among livestock grazing, vegetation type, and fire behavior in the Murphy Wildland Fire Complex in Idaho and Nevada, July 2007: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1214, 42 p. Available online at: http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range/MurphyFireComplex/ (Accessed Sept. 09, 2008.) Link, S.O., C.W. Keeler, R.W. Hill and E. Hagen. 2006. Bromus tectorum cover mapping and fire risk. International Journal of Wildland Fire 15:113-119. Loeser, M.R.R., T.D. Sisk and T.E. Crews. 2007. Impact of grazing intensity during drought in an Arizona grassland. Conservation Biology 21:87-97. Miller, R.F. and T.J. Svejcar and N.E. West. 1994. Implications of livestock grazing in the Intermountain Sagebrush Region: Plan composition. In: M. Vavra, W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Pieper [eds.]. Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West. Published by the Society for Range Management, Denver, CO Miller, E., and Narayanan, R., Eds., 2008, Great Basin wildfire forum: The search for solutions, Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station, Reno, Nevada, p. 44, available only online at http://www.cabnr.unr.edu/naes/wildfireforum.pdf. (Accessed July 23, 2008.) Miller R.F. and J.A. Rose. 1999. Fire history and western juniper encroachment in sagebrush steppe. Journal of Range Management 52:550-559. Miller, R.F. and L.L. Eddleman. 2001. Spatial and temporal changes of sage grouse habitat in the sagebrush biome. Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station. Technical Bulletin 151. 35p. Mosley, J.C. and L. Roselle. 2006. Targeted livestock grazing to suppress invasive annual grasses. (Chapter 8, pp. 68-77). In: Targeted Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation Management and Landscape Enhancement. Published by the American Sheep Industry Association. Centennial, CO. Peters, E.F. and S.C. Bunting. 1994. Fire conditions pre- and post occurrence of annual grasses on the Snake River Plain. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. Proceedings-- ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. p. 31-36. Stoddart, L.A., A.D. Smith and T.W. Box. 1975. Development of Range Management. Chapter 3 (pp. 76-103) In: Range Management. Mc-Graw Hill Book Company. New York, NY. Tausch, R.J., R.S. Nowak, A.D. Bruner, and J. Smithson, 1994b. Effects of simulated fall and early spring grazing on cheatgrass and perennial grass in western Nevada, Symposium on Ecology, Management, and Restoration of Intermountain Annual Rangeland, Boise, ID, May 18- 22, 1992. INT-GTR-315, p. 113-119. Vale, T.R. 1974. Sagebrush conversion projects: an element of contemporary environmental change in the western United States. Biological Conservation 6:274-284. Westoby, M., B.H. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management. 42:266-274. Young, J.A. and R.R. Blank. 1995. Cheatgrass and wildfires in the Intermountain West. California Exotic Pest Plant Council 1995 Symposium Proceedings. 3 p. Young, J.A., R.A. Evans, R.E. Eckert Jr. and B.L. Kay. 1987. Cheatgrass. Rangelands 9:266- 270. Zimmerman, G.T. and L.F. Neuenschwander, 1984. Livestock grazing influences on community structure, fire intensiy, and fire frequency with the Douglas-fire/Ninebark habitat type. Journal of Range Management 37:104-110. Works Consulted Anderson, J.E. and K.E. Holte. 1981. Vegetation development over 25 years without grazing on sagebrush-dominated rangeland in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Range Management 34:25-29. Baker, W.L. 2006. Fire and restoration of sagebrush ecosystems. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:177- 185. Banner, R.E. and M.Guttrey. 2007. Grazing sagebrush with sheep to enhance Greater Sage- grouse broodrearing habitat. In: Messmer, T.A. [Ed.] 2007 ANNUAL REPORT of SAGE- GROUSE RESTORATION PROJECT. Available online at: http://sgrp.usu.edu/files/uploads/2007 SGRP Report.pdf Bork, E.W., N.E. West and J.W. Walker. 1998. Cover components on long-term seasonal sheep grazing treatments in three-tip sagebrush steppe. Journal of Range Management 51:293-300. Bradford, J.B. and W.K. Lauenroth, 2006. Controls over invasion of Bromus tectorum: The importance of climate, soil, disturbance and seed availability. Journal of Vegetation Science 17:693-704. Brooks, M.L. and D.A. Pyke. 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the deserts of North America. Pages 1-14 In: K.E.M. Galley and T.P. Wilson (eds.). Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: the role of fire in the spread and control of invasive species. Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee Florida, U.S.A. Brown, J.K. 1969. Porosity of cheatgrass fuel related to weight. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Note INT-97, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 4 pages. Brown, J.K. 1982. Fuel and Fire Behavior Prediction in big sagebrush, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper INT-290, Ogden, UT. Bunting, S.C., J.L. Kingery, M.A. Hemstrom, M.A. Schroeder, R.A. Gravenmire and W.J. Hann, 2002. Altered rangeland ecosystems in the Interior Columbia Basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-553., Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 71p. Buttkus, H. and R.J. Bose. 1977. Characterization of a monoterpenoid ether from the essential oil of sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 54:212-214. Chambers, J.C., B.A. Roundy, R.R. Blank, S.E. Meyer, and A. Whittaker. 2007. “What makes Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecological Monographs 77:117-145. Clark R.G., H.A. Wright and F.H. Roberts. 1984. Theshold requirements for fire spread in grassland fuels. In: Rangeland fire effects: a symposium, (Sanders K, and Durham J). Bureau of Land Management and University of Idaho, Boise, Idaho November 27-29, 1984. Colket E.C. 2003. Long-term vegetation dynamics and post-fire establishment of sagebrush steppe. Master’s Thesis, Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA. Cottam, W.P. and F.R. Evans. 1945. A comparative study of the vegetation of grazed and ungrazed canyons of the Wasatch Range, Utah. Ecology 26:171-181. Courtois, D.R., B.L. Perryman and H.S. Hussein. 2004. Vegetation change after 65 years of grazing and grazing exclusion. Journal of Range Management 57:574-582. D'Antonio, C.M. and P.M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:63-87. Davison, J. 1996. Livestock grazing in wildland fuel management programs. Rangelands 18:242- 245. Daubenmire, R.E. 1940. Plant succession due to overgrazing in the Agropyron bunchgrass prairie of southeastern Washington. Ecology 21:55-64. Eckert, R.E. and J.S. Spencer. 1986. Vegetation response on allotments grazed under rest-rotation management. Journal of Range Management 39:166-174. Eckert, R.E. and J.S. Spencer, 1987. Growth and reproduction of grasses heavily grazed under rest-rotation management. Journal of Range Management 40:156-159. Finnerty, D.W. and D.L. Klingman. 1962. Life cycles and control studies of some weed brome grasses. Weeds 10:40-47. Frischknecht, N.C. and A.T. Bleak. 1957. Encroachment of big sagebrush on seeded range in northeastern Nevada. Journal of Range Management 10:165-170. Hempy-Mayer, K. and D.A. Pyke. 2008. “Defoliation effects on Bromus tectorum seed production: implications for grazing.” Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:116-123. Hendrickson, J. and B. Olson. 2006. Understanding plant response to grazing. (Chapter 4, pp. 32- 29). In: Targeted Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation Management and Landscape Enhancement. Published by the American Sheep Industry Association. Centennial, CO. Available online at: www.cnr.uidaho.edu/rx-grazing/Hanbook.htm. Holechek, J.L., T.T. Baker, J.C. Boren and D. Galt. 2006. Grazing impacts on rangeland vegetation: What we have learned. Rangelands 28:7-13. Hull A.C. and J.F. Pechanec. 1947. Cheatgrass—A challenge to range research. Journal of Forestry 45:555-564. Klemmendson, J.O. and J.G. Smith. 1964. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.). Botanical Review 30:226-258. Knapp, P. A. 1996. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L) dominance in the Great Basin Desert- History, persistence, and influences to human activities. Global Environmental Change 6:37-52. Laycock, W.A.1967. How heavy grazing and protection affect sagebrush-grass ranges. Journal of Range Management 20:206-213. Mack, R.N. 1981. Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into western North America: An ecological chronicle. Agro-Ecosystems 7:145-165. Mack, R.N. and D.A. Pyke. 1983. The demography of Bromus tectorum: Variation in time and space. Journal of Ecology 71:69-93. Madany, M.H. and N.E. West. 1983. Livestock grazing-fire regime interactions within montane- forests of Zion National Park, Utah. Ecology 64:661-667. Menakis, J.P., D. Osborne and M. Miller. 2003. Mapping the cheatgrass-caused departure from historical natural fire regimes in the Great Basin, USA. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29. p. 281-288. Miller, R.F., M.R. Haferkamp and R.F. Angell. 1990. Clipping date effects on soil water and regrowth in crested wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management 43:253-257. Mosley, J.C. 1996. Prescribed sheep grazing to suppress cheatgrass: A review. Sheep and Goat Research Journal 12:74-81. Nachlinger J., K. Sochi, P. Comer, G. Kittel, and D. Dorfman 2001. Great Basin: An ecoregion- based conservation blueprint. The Nature Conservancy, Reno, Nevada, USA. Nader G., Z. Henkin, E. Smith, R. Ingram, and N. Narvaez. 2007. Planned herbivory in the management of wildlife fuels. Rangelands 29:18-24. Pellant, M. 1996. Cheatgrass: The Invader That Won the West Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Available at: http://www.icbemp.gov/science/pellant.pdf. Accessed 27 September 2007. Pickford, G.D. 1932. The influence of continued heavy grazing and of promiscuous burning on spring-fall ranges in Utah. Ecology 13:159-171. Pyke, D.A. 1986. Demographic responses of Bromus tectorum and seedlings of Agropyron spicatum to grazing by small mammals: Occurrence and severity of grazing. Journal of Ecology 74:739-754. Ricketts T.H., E. Dinerstein, D.M. Olson, C.J. Loucks, W.Eichbaum, D. DellaSala, K. Kavanagh, P. Hedao, P.T. Hurley, K.M. Carney, R. Abell, and S. Walters. 1999. Terrestrial ecoregions of North America: A conservation assessment. Island Press, Washington D.C. USA Robertson, J. H. 1971. Changes on a sagebrush-grass range in Nevada ungrazed for 30 years. Journal of Range Management 24:397–400. Roselle, L. 2007. Effects of sheep grazing on vegetation recovery after wildfire in a sagebrush steppe community and revegetation of annual grasslands. Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. USA. Rothermel, R.C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and rangefires, Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-143. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 161 p. Rummell, R.S. 1951. Some effects of livestock grazing on ponderosa pine forest and range in central Washington. Ecology 32:594-607. Sapsis D.B. and J.B. Kauffmann. 1991. Fuel consumption and fire behavior associated with prescribed fire in sagebrush ecosystems. Northwest Science 65:173-179. Simard A.J. 1991. Fire severity, changing scales, and how things hang together. International Journal of Wildland Fire 1:23–34. Stewart, G. and A.C. Hull 1949. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.)An ecologic intruder in Southern Idaho. Ecology 30:58-74. Stohlgren, T.J., L.D. Schell and B. Vanden Heuvel. 1997. How grazing and soil quality affect native and exotic plant diversity in Rocky Mountain grasslands. Ecological Applications 9:45-64. Svejcar, T. and R. Tausch. 1991. Anoha Island, Nevada: A relict area dominated by annual invader species. Rangelands 13:233-236. Tausch, R.J., T. Svejcar and J.W. Burkhardt. 1994a. Patterns of annual grass dominance on Anaho Island: Implications for Great Basin vegetation management. USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech rep. INT-GTR-313 p.120-125. Taylor, C.A. Jr. 2006. Targeted grazing to manage fire risk, Chapter 12: Targeted grazing: A natural approach to vegetation management and landscape enhancement (editors Launchbaugh KL and J Walker), American Sheep Industry Association, pp. 108-115. Tisdale, E.W., M. Hironaka and M.A. Fosberg. 1965. An area of pristine vegetation in Craters of the Moon National Monument, ID. Ecology 46:349-352. Vallentine, J.F. and A.R. Stevens, 1994. Use of livestock to control cheatgrass--A review, USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech Rep. INT-GTR-313, pp. 202-206. West, N.E., F.D. Provenza, P.S. Johnson and K.M. Owens. 1984. Vegetation change after 13 years of livestock grazing exclusion on sagebrush semi-arid-desert in West Central Utah. Journal of Range Management 37:262-264. Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam, 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940-943. Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, and V. A. Saab. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. UDSA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485, Portland, Oregon, USA. Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho's Snake River Plains: ecological and management implications. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Romney, Evan M.; Smith, Stanley D.; Tueller, Paul T., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management; 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. p. 4-10. Yanish, C.R. 2002. Western juniper succession: Changing fuels and fire behavior, Masters Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA. Young J.A., R.A. Evans and B.L. Kay. 1969. Population dynamics of downy brome. Weed Science 17:20-26. Young, J.A. and F.L. Allen.1997. Cheatgrass and range science: 1930-1950. Journal of Range Management 50:530-535. Young, J.A. and R.R. Blank. 1995. Cheatgrass and wildfires in the Intermountain West. California Exotic Pest Plant Council 1995 Symposium Proceedings. 3 p.
Pages to are hidden for
"RMP Executive Summary"Please download to view full document