RMP Executive Summary by Umv8VmhZ

VIEWS: 14 PAGES: 17

									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.

								
To top