Record of Decision Record of Decision
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Table of Contents: Record of Decision

i 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Record of Decision

Table of Contents

Introduction ROD-1

Overview of the Alternatives ROD-1

Results of Protest Review ROD-4

The Decision ROD-7

What the Decision/ Approved RMP Provides ROD-7

What the Decision/RMP Does Not Provide ROD-8

Notice of Modifications and Clarifications ROD-9

Modifications ROD-9

Clarifications ROD-10

Management Considerations ROD-16

Purpose and Need ROD-16

Meeting the Purpose and Need, Addressing the Planning Issues, and Analyzing the Environmental 

Consequences ROD-17

Rationale for Wild Horse Decisions ROD-20

Rationale for Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions ROD-21

Rationale for Livestock Grazing Decisions ROD-21

Bruneau River Canyons ROD-21

Consistency and Consultation Review ROD-21

Consistency with The National Sage-grouse Planning Strategy ROD-22

Governor’s Office Consistency Review ROD-22

Consistency with Counties ROD-23

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Consultation ROD-23

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation ROD-23

Coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ROD-23

Mitigation Measures ROD-24

Plan Monitoring and Evaluation ROD-24

Public Involvement ROD-25

Tribal Participation ROD-25

Coordination with Federal, State, and Local Government Agencies ROD-25

Newsletters and Website ROD-26

Scoping ROD-26

Public Meetings, Briefings, and Presentations ROD-26

Draft RMP/EIS ROD-27

Proposed RMP/Final EIS ROD-28

Availability of the Plan ROD-28

State Director Approval ROD-29
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Record of Decision

ROD-1 

INTRODUCTION

This Record of Decision (ROD) approves the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) proposal to manage 

the public lands within the Jarbidge Field Office as presented in the attached Approved Resource 

Management Plan (RMP). The Approved RMP was described as Alternative VI (Proposed Plan) in the 

2014 Jarbidge Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

(BLM, 2014). This ROD provides the background on development of the plan and rationale for approving 

the proposed decisions contained in Alternative VI (Proposed Plan), and describes the modifications and 

clarifications made to address protests received on the plan. The attached Jarbidge Approved RMP

describes the decisions themselves.

The Jarbidge Approved RMP planning area boundary coincides with the boundary of the BLM Jarbidge 

Field Office. The boundary extends from the Bruneau River on the west to Salmon Falls Creek on the 

east, and from the Snake River on the north to the northern boundaries of the BLM Wells Field Office and 

the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest on the south. It includes parts of Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls 

Counties in south-central Idaho and Elko County in northern Nevada. The BLM manages approximately 

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

acres of livestock grazing. This plan supersedes the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan 

previously used to guide management of public lands in the Jarbidge Field Office. 

OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES

In the 2009 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS, six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in 

detail. The alternatives were developed to address major planning issues and to provide direction for 

resource programs influencing land management. 

In the 2014 Proposed RMP/Final EIS, an additional alternative was analyzed. This alternative, Alternative 

VI (Proposed Plan), was developed to provide a practical and workable alternative to actively restore 

sagebrush steppe ecosystem structure, function, and resiliency through restoration treatments and 

enhanced fire management. Although Alternative IV-B (Preferred Alternative) from the Draft RMP/EIS 

was used as the baseline, the BLM selected goals, objectives, and management actions from the other 

alternatives that integrated ecological, economic, and social principles in a manner that safeguards the 

long-term sustainability, diversity, and productivity of the land. Management actions were then refined 

based on analysis of the alternatives in the Draft RMP/EIS and feedback received through comments 

from the tribes; Federal, State, and county agencies; the public; and organizations. The BLM also 

incorporated into the Proposed Plan changes in laws, regulations, policy, and special status species that 

occurred between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS.

All management under any of the alternatives would comply with federal laws, rules, regulations, and 

policies. Each alternative emphasized a different combination of resource uses, allocations, and 

restoration measures to address issues and resolve conflicts among uses, so program goals were met in 

varying degrees across the alternatives. The seven alternatives analyzed are summarized below.

No Action Alternative

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

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

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

good and excellent ecological condition would be maintained. Vegetation treatments could use native or 

non-native species. The majority of the planning area would remain available for resource uses, including 

livestock grazing, and land use authorizations. Cross-country motorized vehicle use would remain open in 

the majority of Elmore and Twin Falls Counties but would be limited to existing routes in Owyhee County.

The No Action alternative was not selected because it was limited in its consistency with Federal, State, 

and local plans; it does not address tribal issues; it does not include water quality standards; it does not 

identify priority plant species and habitats; protection for cultural and paleontological resources is limited; 
Record of Decision

ROD-2 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) class boundaries are poorly defined; it does not identify current fire 

management and planning guidance; and guidance for fluid and locatable minerals is very general.

Alternative I

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

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

Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) for motorized recreation, hunting and fishing, hiking, and waterbased recreation. Livestock grazing would be maintained near current forage allocation levels. This 

alternative would focus on implementing management to benefit mule deer more than the other 

alternatives. Restoration projects would focus on providing habitat for mule deer and special status 

species, including treatments in some non-native perennial communities. Annual communities would also 

be a focus for vegetation treatments. Vegetation treatments could use native or non-native species 

depending on vegetation objectives. Reducing the amount of wildland fire in the planning area would be 

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

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

Alternative I was not selected. Compared to the Approved RMP, Alternative I has fewer protections for

sage-grouse habitat and sagebrush obligate species, and fewer acres restored to native shrubland with 

more maintenance of non-native perennial vegetation. It has fewer protections for the Oregon National 

Historic Trail (NHT), would require more wild horse round-ups, would close more areas to motorized 

transportation, and would identify fewer areas for critical fire suppression. Also, it has more acres of land 

available for disposal, which could provide less protection for tribal rights and interests.

Alternative II

Alternative II focused on increasing commercial uses throughout most of the planning area. Livestock 

grazing would be increased substantially. Non-native perennial communities would be actively maintained 

for livestock, and treatments in non-native annual communities would focus on converting these areas to 

a non-native, more fire tolerant, forage-producing perennial community. Native plant communities would

be maintained. Other commercial uses, including energy development, would be allowed throughout most 

areas and have the fewest restrictions compared to the other alternatives. Vegetation treatments could 

use native or non-native species depending on vegetation and resource use objectives. Reducing the 

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

vegetation toward FRCC 1, treatments for noxious weeds and invasive plants, construction of fuel breaks, 

and fuels reduction through increased permitted livestock grazing.

Alternative II was not selected. Compared to the Approved RMP, Alternative II has the fewest protections 

for sage-grouse and sagebrush obligate species, no protection of relevant and important values through

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) designations, and the fewest protections for the Oregon 

NHT. It has minimal focus on restoration and recreation, would identify the fewest areas for critical fire 

suppression, would remove all wild horses from the herd area, and would not allow cross-county 

motorized travel. Also, it has more acres of land available for disposal, which could provide less 

protection for tribal rights and interests.

Alternative III

Alternative III focused on restoring the resiliency of ecosystem structure and function through intensive 

management of fuels and enhanced fire suppression capabilities throughout the planning area. This 

alternative would provide for the highest amount of fuels treatments. Non-native perennial plant 

communities would be actively managed to contribute to wildland fire prevention and suppression efforts; 

this management would include increased levels of permitted livestock grazing. Treatments of annual 

communities would focus on converting these areas to non-native perennial fire-tolerant communities. 

Native plant communities would be restored to move toward their historic fire regime; extensive fuels 

reduction measures may be taken to manage native plant communities. Vegetation treatments may use 

both native and non-native species, with fire-tolerant and fire-resistant species having a high priority. 

Other uses would be allowed to the extent they do not contribute to an increase in wildland fire size and 
Record of Decision

ROD-3 

intensity. The quality and quantity of infrastructure such as roads and water would be increased to 

support fire suppression activities more in this alternative than in other alternatives.

Alternative III was not selected. Compared to the Approved RMP, Alternative III has fewer protections for 

sage-grouse habitat and sagebrush obligate species and fewer acres restored to native shrubland with 

more maintenance of non-native perennial vegetation. It has less protection of relevant and important 

values through ACEC designations, fewer protections for the Oregon NHT, and would identify fewer 

areas for critical fire suppression. Also, it has more acres of land available for disposal, which could 

provide less protection for tribal rights and interests.

Alternative IV 

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

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

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

more tools and more intensive approaches in more areas than in Alternative V. Vegetation treatments 

could use native or non-native species depending on vegetation objectives. Reducing the amount of 

wildland fire in the planning area would be addressed through treatments to move vegetation toward

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

Alternative IV has been split into two sub-alternatives. The only difference between the sub-alternatives is 

the size of the Inside Desert and Jarbidge Foothills ACECs; these ACECs would have larger boundaries 

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

sections in which ACEC management is a factor.

Alternative IV was not selected. Compared to the Approved RMP, Alternative IV has fewer protections for 

the Oregon NHT. It also has more acres of land available for disposal, which could provide less protection 

for sage-grouse and provide less protection for tribal rights and interests.

Alternative V

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

communities, passive restoration approaches would be preferred. Active restoration would take place in 

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

minimize soil disturbance. Restoration projects would focus on habitat for sage-grouse and other special 

status species as well as special designations. Vegetation treatments would use only native species. 

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

move vegetation toward FRCC 1, treatments for noxious weeds and invasive plants, and construction of 

fuel breaks.

Alternative V was not selected. Compared to the Approved RMP, Alternative V has fewer acres of 

shrubland restoration, fewer protections for the Oregon NHT, minimal focus on recreation, and the most 

acres closed to motorized travel. It has more acres of land available for disposal, which could provide less 

protection for tribal rights and interests. Also, the critical suppression area is so large, it dilutes the 

effectiveness of prioritizing suppression efforts.

Alternative VI (Proposed Plan)

Alternative VI (Proposed Plan) focused on actively restoring the resiliency of sagebrush steppe 

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

balancing resource protection and uses within the planning area. Vegetation treatments could use native 

or non-native species, depending on vegetation objectives. Upland vegetation treatments would focus on 

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

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

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

treatments to move vegetation toward FRCC 1, treatments for noxious weeds and invasive plants, and 

construction of fuel breaks. Commercial uses, including energy development, would be allowed, but 

would be subject to the greatest restrictions within sage-grouse habitat as compared to the other 
Record of Decision

ROD-4 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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

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

for designated play areas in the Deadman and Yahoo SRMAs. The Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness 

would be closed to motorized and mechanized uses.

Alternative IV-B was selected as the BLM's Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP/EIS. As a result of 

public comment, internal review, and cooperating agency coordination on the Draft RMP/EIS, Alternative

IV-B was adjusted to become Alternative VI (Proposed Plan) and analyzed in the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS. This alternative represents the mix and variety of actions that, in the opinion of BLM, best resolve the 

issues and management concerns in consideration of all values and programs. With minor adjustments 

and clarifications, it is now the Approved RMP. (Minor adjustments and clarifications were made and have 

been explained in the Notice of Modification and Clarification section later in this ROD.)

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The BLM determined Alternative VI (Proposed Plan) to be the environmentally preferable alternative, 

taking into account both the human (social and economic) environment and the natural environment. The 

Council on Environmental Quality has defined the environmentally preferable alternative as the one that 

will promote the national environmental policy, as expressed in Section 101 of NEPA. This section lists 

the following goals for all federal plans, programs, and policies:

Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations;

Ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings;

Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or 

safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;

Preserve important historical, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, 

wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice;

Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of living and 

a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and

Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of 

depletable resources.

Based on these criteria, identifying the environmentally preferable alternative involves balancing current 

and potential resource uses, resource impacts, and mitigation to maintain a healthy environment, while 

meeting human needs. Alternative VI (Proposed Plan), provides this balance. Alternatives I and III also 

provide a balanced approach to resource use and protection, but offer less overall protection for sagegrouse and tribal rights and interests. Alternative II is the least environmentally preferable alternative 

because it offers the most intensive use of resources while providing the fewest restrictions for protecting 

natural and cultural resources. Although Alternative IV restores more shrubland, it could provide less 

protection for sage-grouse and tribal rights and interests due to acres available for disposal. Alternative V 

would be more protective of natural and biological resources than the other alternatives, but would be the 

most restrictive for economic use and development.

RESULTS OF PROTEST REVIEW

The BLM received eight protest letters during the 30-day protest period provided for the proposed land 

use plan decisions contained in the Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS in accordance with 43 CFR Part 

1610.5-2. Protesting parties included:

Dana L. Hofstetter, Hofstetter Law Office, representing Jeff Harper, Flying H Land LLC/Flying H 

Farms Partnership

Suzanne Roy, American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, and Ginger Kathrens, the Cloud 

Foundation (the Cloud Foundation does not have protest standing)
Record of Decision

ROD-5 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

o

o

o

o

•

•

•

•

•

o

o

•

•

o

o

•

Owyhee County Board of Commissioners

Darcy A. Helmick, Simplot Livestock Company

Katie Fite, Western Watersheds Projects (2 letters)

Nada Culver, The Wilderness Society

Mike and Ronda Macaw, Devil’s Creek Ranch

The main points of the protests include:

Jeff Harper, Flying H Land LLC/Flying H Farms Partnership

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (FLPMA) because the BLM did not engage and listen to stakeholder concerns during 

preparation of the plan.

Suzanne Roy, American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign and Ginger Kathrens, the Cloud Foundation

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates NEPA because it fails to analyze an alternative that 

restores access to the Snake River as a water source for wild horses.

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates NEPA because it fails to adequately analyze the 

impacts of managing a non-reproducing herd in the Saylor Creek Herd Management Area (HMA). 

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS does not analyze the impacts to: 

the “wild” and “free roaming” nature of wild horses and other behavioral dynamics; 

the physical health of mares; 

genetic diversity; and 

rangeland health.

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 

1971, its implementing regulations, and BLM Handbook H-4700-1 by proposing to manage a nonreproducing herd in the Saylor Creek HMA.

Owyhee County Board of Commissioners

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates FLPMA by not fully identifying inconsistencies with 

existing county plans.

Darcy A. Helmick, Simplot Livestock Company

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates NEPA because it fails to adequately analyze the 

impacts from making the canyons associated with the Bruneau River, Jarbidge River, and Salmon 

Falls Creek unavailable for grazing. 

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS cannot make allotment-level decisions regarding managing 

biological crusts in an RMP.

Katie Fite, Western Watersheds Projects (2 letters)

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates NEPA because it fails to analyze an alternative that:

makes the entire Jarbidge planning area unavailable to grazing; and

relies on both active and passive restoration.

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates NEPA because it fails to adequately analyze impacts 

to vegetation. The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS relies on inaccurate baseline information 

regarding cheatgrass and other exotic understory species.

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates NEPA because it fails to adequately analyze the 

impacts of livestock grazing decisions. The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS: 

does not conduct valid carrying capacity and suitability analyses for livestock grazing; and

does not use proper indicators to analyze livestock grazing impacts.

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates NEPA because its purpose and need focuses on 

extractive resources rather than protecting the natural environment.
Record of Decision

ROD-6 

•

•

•

o

o

o

o

o

o

•

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

•

•

•

•

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates FLPMA by not adequately protecting lands with 

wilderness characteristics and not expanding ACECs.

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates Secretarial Order 3289A1. The Jarbidge Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS mentions that climate change can change adverse impacts to the planning area, but it 

does not adequately analyze, nor provide sufficient measures for mitigating, the impacts from climate 

change.

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates FLPMA, BLM Manual Section 6840, and Washington 

Office Instruction Memorandum 2012-044. With regard to greater sage-grouse, the Jarbidge 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS: 

is inaccurate regarding the species’ early nesting cover needs;

does not analyze existing structural range improvements;

does not provide necessary controls for livestock grazing; 

does not provide an adequate monitoring plan;

does not establish disturbance thresholds; and

does not incorporate Preliminary Priority Habitat and Preliminary General Habitat.

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between 

Western Watersheds Project and the BLM. The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS: 

does not adequately establish reference areas;

does not establish guidelines for drought;

does not analyze a range of protective measures, mitigation, and maps for the greater sagegrouse and its habitat;

does not analyze a “no grazing” alternative;

does not establish criteria for issuing new livestock grazing permits;

does not consider livestock disturbance and resource conflicts when establishing livestock 

grazing allocations;

does not establish protocols and develop necessary data with regard to sensitive species and 

their habitats; 

does not consider science submitted by Western Watersheds Project;

does not adequately address desired outcomes, allowable uses, and management actions; and

does not consider utilization, trends, and other monitoring data.

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates FLPMA by failing to give priority to ACECs. The 

Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS does not consider additional ACECs and reduces protections for 

the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC.

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS does not sufficiently disclose or discuss the visual resource 

inventory (VRI).

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates FLPMA because it uses FRCC categories for 

wildland fire management.

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates BLM’s Special Status Species policy and the 

Migratory Bird Act. The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS does not adequately analyze the impacts 

to important species by only analyzing impacts to ‘guilds’ of species.

Nada Culver, The Wilderness Society

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates FLPMA by not adequately protecting lands with 

wilderness characteristics and not expanding ACECs.

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates FLPMA, BLM Manual Section 6840, and Washington 

Office Instruction Memorandum 2012-044. With regard to greater sage-grouse, the Jarbidge 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS: 

does not formally designate (e.g. ACEC) a priority greater sage-grouse management area;

contains inconsistencies regarding greater sage-grouse management;
Record of Decision

ROD-7 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS violates BLM Manual Section 6320. The Jarbidge Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS does not adequately protect lands with wilderness characteristics, and does not 

adequately document its rationale for not protecting lands with wilderness characteristics.

Ronda and Mike Macaw, Devil’s Creek Ranch

The Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS depicts proposed reference areas in our allotment as 

unavailable for grazing which will affect access to water for all animals in this area.

The BLM Director denied all protests. Minor adjustments and clarifications were made and have been 

explained in the Notice of Modification and Clarification section later in this ROD. Detailed information on 

protests may be found on the BLM Washington Office Website at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/protest_resolution.html. 

THE DECISION 

The decision is hereby made to approve the attached plan as the Approved Resource Management Plan 

(Approved RMP) for management of public lands that are administered by the BLM’s Jarbidge Field 

Office. The Approved RMP replaces public land decisions in the1987 Jarbidge RMP and amendments.

The Approved RMP was prepared under the authorities of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) of 1976 in accordance with BLM planning regulations (43 CFR Part 1600). An Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for this RMP in compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969.

What the Decision/ Approved RMP Provides

Land use plan decisions include: 

Goals 

Objectives (Desired Future Conditions) 

Land Use Allocations 

Management Actions 

Goals are the broad statements of desired outcomes, and are usually not quantifiable. 

Objectives are specific desired conditions, usually quantifiable and measurable, and may have 

timeframes for achievement. 

Land use allocations specify locations within the planning area that are available or not for certain uses. 

These include decisions such as what lands are available for livestock grazing, mineral material use, oil 

and gas leasing, and locatable mineral development, what lands may be available for disposal via 

exchange and/ or sale, and what lands are open, closed, or limited to motorized travel (please note that 

all acreages presented in the Approved RMP are estimations even when presented to the nearest acre). 

Management actions include those provisions that help in meeting the established goals and objectives 

and include measures that will be applied to guide day-to-day activities on public lands, including but not 

limited to stipulations, guidelines, best management practices (BMPs), and design features. 

The primary RMP management decisions in the Approved RMP are to: 

Manage resources to protect and enhance vegetative communities, fish and wildlife resources, 

riparian areas and wetlands, wild horses, and visual, cultural, geological, and paleontological 

resources. 

Manage uses to protect and prevent damage to public land resources, and to enhance those 

resources where feasible. 

Designate critical and conditional fire suppression areas. 
Record of Decision

ROD-8 

•

•

•

o

o

o

•

•

o

o

o

o

•

•

o

•

o

•

•

•

•

•

Manage a non-reproducing herd with an appropriate management level range of 50 to 200 wild 

horses in the Saylor Creek Wild Horse Management Area. 

Establish a 990,000 acre sage-grouse management area. 

Manage livestock grazing to ensure achievement or movement towards meeting Idaho Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

Designate 1,411,000 acres available for livestock grazing.

Designate 52,000 acres unavailable for livestock grazing.

Allocate 216,000 to 326,000 animal unit months (AUMs) for livestock at initial implementation of 

the RMP, and 186,000 to 279,000 at full implementation.

Designate six SRMAs, four Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs), and two special 

recreational management zones. 

Designate areas as Limited, Closed, or Open to motorized vehicle use:

Designate 1,304,000 acres as limited to existing routes, 

Designate 60,000 acres as closed to motorized and mechanized vehicle use, 

Designate 3,000 acres as closed to motorized vehicle use, and 

Designate 4,000 acres in Deadman and Yahoo SRMAs as open to cross-country motorized 

vehicle use. 

Recommend withdrawal of approximately 20 acres from locatable mineral entry. 

Determine which lands are available or unavailable to mineral leasing:

Make an estimated 1,276,000 acres of federal mineral estate available for mineral leasing under 

standard lease terms and conditions, 

Make an estimated 915,000 acres available for mineral leasing with moderate constraints; 

and an estimated 26,000 acres available mineral leasing with major constraints,

Make approximately 95,000 acres unavailable for mineral leasing.

Designate four ACECs and manage according to the special management prescriptions identified for 

each area. 

Establish the Oregon NHT National Trail Management Corridor and protective zone. 

Tentatively classify seven river segments as eligible for consideration as part of the National Wild and 

Scenic system, and manage such segments to protect their free flowing nature and outstandingly 

remarkable values.

Continue and manage the Lower Salmon Falls Creek Wilderness Study Area in accordance with the 

BLM Manual 6330 - Management of Wilderness Study Areas - unless released by Congress. 

This ROD serves as the final decision establishing the land use plan decisions outlined in the Approved 

RMP and is effective on the date it is signed. No further administrative remedies are available for these 

land use plan decisions. 

What the Decision/RMP Does Not Provide

This Approved Plan does not authorize any project, approve any application, or provide approval for any 

specific future action within the planning area. All applications, regardless of the proposal, will be subject 

to a NEPA process, including additional public review, the identification of potential impacts resulting from 

the proposed action, the development and application of mitigating measures, and the assignment of 

Required Operating Procedures, Stipulations, and Standard Lease Terms as appropriate.

The Approved RMP does not include a Travel Management Plan (TMP). Within five years of signing 

this Record of Decision, the BLM will complete a TMP. The TMP will determine the routes and trails 

to be designated, modified, closed, or rehabilitated as well as the maintenance level, modes of travel, 

and seasonal and access restrictions for designated routes. The TMP will be developed through a 

public process to determine the transportation and travel system for the planning area. 
Record of Decision

ROD-9 

•

•

•

•

o

o

o

•

o

o

•

o

o

•

o

The Approved RMP does not contain allotment-level forage allocations for livestock grazing. This will

be determined as part of the permit renewal process.

RMP decisions for surface estate only apply to BLM managed lands, even where these private or 

state lands are shown on a map included in the RMP.

The RMP does not affect valid existing rights.

 Many decisions are not appropriate at this level of planning and are not included in the ROD. 

Examples of these types of decisions include: 

Statutory requirements. The decision will not change the BLM's responsibility to comply with 

applicable laws, rules, and regulations. 

National policy. The decision will not change BLM's obligation to conform with current or future 

National policy. 

Funding levels and budget allocations. These are determined annually at the National level and 

are beyond the control of the field office.

NOTICE OF MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

Modifications and clarifications were made to the Approved RMP based on the review and resolution of 

the protest letters, as well as from internal review by the BLM. None of the modifications or clarifications 

alter the Chapter 4 analyses in the Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The modifications or clarifications 

to the decisions are provided below.

Modifications

The following modifications made to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS are reflected in the Approved RMP:

In the Lands with Wilderness Characteristics section, the goal and objective was modified and a 

management action was added to be consistent with BLM Manual 6320- Considering Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process.

WC-G-1 previously stated “Lands with Wilderness Characteristics will not be managed to 

maintain wilderness characteristics. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics will be managed for 

multiple use consistent with resource objectives and designations.” It has been modified to state 

“Lands inventoried to contain wilderness characteristics will be managed to emphasize other 

multiple uses while applying management restrictions to reduce impacts to wilderness 

characteristics.”

WC-MA-1 was added, which states “Projects within lands inventoried as containing wilderness 

characteristics will consider measures to minimize impacts on naturalness, opportunities for 

solitude, and opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation.” 

In the Wild Horses section, two management actions from Alternative VI (Proposed Plan) in the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS were not carried forward into the Approved RMP because they pertained to 

restrictions during foaling. Since the wild horse herd in the Approved RMP will be non-reproducing, 

there will be no foaling period. Those management actions stated:

If a conflict between motorized travel and wild horses is identified, seasonal restrictions may be 

placed on motorized travel within the HMA during foaling (from March through July).

Seasonal restrictions may be placed on authorized uses within the HMA to avoid disturbing wild 

horses during foaling (March through July).

In the Livestock Grazing section, allocation LG-A-1 was modified to say “The majority of the planning 

area will be available for livestock grazing (1,411,000 acres). The following areas will not be available 

for livestock grazing (52,000 acres): 

Unallocated portions of the canyons associated with the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers and 

Salmon Falls Creek (below the dam).” 
Record of Decision

ROD-10

•

o

•

•

•

o

o

•

o

This modification better describes our intent of the allocation, and will continue to allow historic 

grazing in the Bruneau Canyon Allotment as administered by the Bruneau Field Office. Grazing of this 

allotment was analyzed in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS under the No Action Alternative, although 

mapped incorrectly. Map 17 in the Approved RMP has been corrected to display this modification.

See Meeting the Purpose and Need, Addressing the Planning Issues, and Analyzing the 

Environmental Consequences section, Rationale for Livestock Grazing Decision, for more details. 

In the Transportation and Travel section, one management action from Alternative VI (Proposed Plan) 

in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS was not carried forward into the Approved RMP because it pertained 

to travel restrictions during wild horse foaling. Since the wild horse herd in the Approved RMP will be 

non-reproducing, there will be no foaling period. The management actions stated:

If a conflict between motorized travel and wild horses is identified, seasonal restrictions may be 

placed on motorized travel within the Herd Management Area during foaling (from March through 

July).

In the Land Use Authorization section, the Section 368 energy corridor widths in allocation LA-A-4 

were modified from one mile wide to 3,500 feet wide. This includes the Pilgrim Gulch, Shoestring, 

Saylor Creek, and Balanced Rock corridors. These widths were analyzed in the No Action Alternative 

and will be more protective of natural and cultural resources. The narrower widths will also be

consistent with adjacent BLM field offices and the 2009 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Amendments/Record of Decision for Designation of Energy Corridor on BLM-Administered Lands in 

the 11 Western States. 

In the Locatable Minerals section, allocation LO-A-2 was added to include a small parcel of land 

formerly known as the White Rind Jasper Mine, whose claim will be relinquished back to the BLM. 

The parcel is surrounded by the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness, but was not designated as 

wilderness by Congress. This parcel was analyzed in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS as withdrawn by 

statue in all alternatives, and recommended for withdrawal in Alternatives I, III, and IV since it is 

located within the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC. Map 30 in the Approved RMP has been corrected to 

display this modification.

Clarifications

The following clarifications and minor corrections made to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS are reflected in 

the Approved RMP: 

In the Air and Atmospheric Values section, management actions AAV-MA-5 and AAV-MA-7 removed 

the phrase “of Idaho” in order to provide consistency with other management actions. It also removes 

specificity to State of Idaho requirements or standards which will not apply if an activity or authorized 

use takes place in Nevada.

AAV-MA-5 previously stated “Develop dust abatement stipulations for BLM-authorized 

construction and maintenance activities that have the potential to exceed State of Idaho air 

quality standards.” It has been changed to state “Develop dust abatement stipulations for BLMauthorized construction and maintenance activities that have the potential to exceed State air 

quality standards.”

AAV-MA-7 previously stated “Design BLM activities and authorized uses to comply with State of 

Idaho requirements for noise management.” It has been changed to “Design BLM activities and 

authorized uses to comply with State requirements for noise management.”

In the Water Resources section, minor corrections were made to management actions WR-MA-2, 

WR-MA-6, and WR-MA-9. 

WR-MA-2 previously stated “Prevent or mitigate the impacts of BLM management activities and 

authorized and allowed uses on water quality to comply with Federal, State, and local water 

quality regulations.” It has been changed to state “Prevent or mitigate the impacts of BLM 
Record of Decision

ROD-11

o

o

•

o

o

•

o

o

o

management activities and authorized and allowed uses on water quality to comply with Federal 

and State water quality regulations.”

WR-MA-6 added the word “new” in front of water development projects to state “Consult or 

coordinate with the tribes and with Federal, State, and local agencies when determining location 

and designs for new water development projects.”

WR-MA-9 removed the phrase “of Idaho and Nevada” to be consistent with other management 

actions. It previously stated “Water bodies that are supporting beneficial uses (e.g., cold water 

biota, salmonid spawning, recreation, and agriculture) will be managed to meet or exceed State 

of Idaho and Nevada regulations.” It now states “Water bodies that are supporting beneficial uses 

(e.g., cold water biota, salmonid spawning, recreation, and agriculture) will be managed to meet 

or exceed State regulations.” 

In the Riparian Areas and Wetlands section, minor corrections were made to management actions RIMA-1 and RI-MA-3. 

RI-MA-1 previously stated “Identify Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) around riparian areas 

and wetlands that contain or are tributaries to streams that contain special status species or their 

habitat to protect riparian vegetation, fisheries, and water quality. RCA widths will be as follows.” 

The terms “as described in Appendix B (Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy [ARMS])” 

and “default” were added to make it consistent with Appendix B. It now states “Identify Riparian 

Conservation Areas (RCAs) around riparian areas and wetlands that contain or are tributaries to 

streams that contain special status species or their habitat to protect riparian vegetation, fisheries, 

and water quality as described in Appendix B (Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy

[ARMS]). Default RCA widths will be as follows.”

RI-MA-3 previously stated “Specific streams are prioritized in the ARMS (Appendix B, Tables B-3 

and B-5). To add clarity, it was changed to state “Priority streams are listed in the ARMS 

(Appendix B, Tables B-3 and B-5).” 

In the Special Status Species section, management actions SS-MA-2, SS-MA-23, SS-MA-25, and 

SS-MA-32 were corrected.

SS-MA-2 previously stated “Special status species management will apply to Endangered, 

Threatened, Candidate, and Proposed species (Type 1 BLM Sensitive); other BLM Sensitive 

species (Types 2 through 4); and proposed or designated critical habitat; this includes plants, fish 

and other aquatic species, and wildlife.” The phrases “Type 1 BLM Sensitive” and “Types 2 

through 4” were removed because the BLM eliminated these terms for wildlife. It now states 

“Special status species management will apply to Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, and 

Proposed species; other BLM Sensitive species; and proposed or designated critical habitat; this 

includes plants, fish and other aquatic species, and wildlife.”

o SS-MA-23 previously stated “Avoid locating new transmission lines, phone lines, or 

communication towers/facilities in native shrubland and native grassland communities to minimize 

impacts to sage-grouse. The words “in native shrubland and native grassland communities” were 

removed and the phrase “in the sage-grouse management area” was inserted to add clarity. It 

now states “Avoid locating new transmission lines, phone lines, or communication towers/facilities 

in the sage-grouse management area to minimize impacts to sage-grouse. 

SS-MA-25 removed “prairie falcon” from the list as it is no longer a special status species. It 

previously stated “BLM management activities and authorized uses within one mile of known 

ferruginous hawk and peregrine falcon nests and 0.5 mile from prairie falcon and northern 

goshawk nests will be designed to minimize impacts to their prey base and availability of nesting 

material from February through July.” It now states “BLM management activities and authorized 

uses within one mile of known ferruginous hawk and peregrine falcon nests and 0.5 mile from 

northern goshawk nests will be designed to minimize impacts to their prey base and availability of 

nesting material from February through July.” 

SS-MA-32 updated the title of the bull trout recovery plan from the “2004 Recovery Plan for the 

Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout” to the “2014 Revised Draft Recovery 

Plan for the Coterminous United States Population of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus).” 
Record of Decision

ROD-12

•

o

o

o

o

•

•

o

o

•

o

o

o

o

o

o

•

o

o

In the Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants section, management action NW-MA-12 added the term 

“equipment decontamination” to the toolbox for preventing the introduction and spread of noxious 

weeds and invasive plants. The toolbox now states:

Public outreach (e.g., kiosks, media, mailings, publications, social media, brochures);

Equipment decontamination; 

Wash stations; and

Modifying uses to minimize new introductions and spread.

In the Wildland Fire Ecology and Management section, both allocation WFM-A-2 and management 

action WFM-MA-17 changed the term designated critical habitat for slickspot peppergrass to

proposed critical habitat for slickspot peppergrass due to the change in listing status.

In the Wildland Fire Ecology and Management section, management actions FE-MA-3 and FE-MA-15 

were changed to be more inclusive and clarify current practices.

FE-MA-3 added the phrase “affected permittees”. Previously, it stated “Coordinate fuels 

treatments with adjacent landowners, and agencies through County Wildfire Protection Plans or 

other methods.” It now states “Coordinate fuels treatments with adjacent landowners, affected 

permittees, and agencies through County Wildfire Protection Plans or other methods.” 

FE-MA-15 added the sentence “Coordinate with affected permittees when developing ES&BAR 

plans, as appropriate.” It now states “Implement the Programmatic ES&BAR Plan and update as 

needed. Individual ES&BAR plans will be completed through the interdisciplinary process to 

reduce impacts of wildland fire and suppression and to achieve resource objectives. Coordinate 

with affected permittees when developing ES&BAR plans, as appropriate.

In the Visual Resources section, allocation VR-A-3 added the term “existing” in front of overhead 

right-of-way corridors to add clarification. It now states “Areas to be managed as VRM Class III 

(248,000 acres) include: 

The Snake River corridor (from the planning area boundary to 0.25 mile above the breaks);

Areas in the Deadman and Yahoo SRMAs open to cross-country motorized vehicle use that are 

in the Oregon NHT visual corridor;

Existing overhead right-of-way corridors through areas otherwise managed as VRM Class I or II, 

excluding Lower Salmon Falls Creek WSA;

Portions of the Jarbidge Foothills and Diamond A Desert not otherwise managed as VRM Class I 

or II; 

Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC; and

The Kelton and Toana Freight Road protective corridors.” 

In the Livestock Grazing section, minor corrections were made to goal LG-G-1 to make it consistent 

with wording from the Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management and 43 CFR 4180.2. Minor corrections were made to Management Actions LG-MA-22, 

LG-MA-31, and LG-MA-32 to add clarity.

LG-G-1 previously stated “Manage livestock grazing to ensure achievement of or movement 

towards meeting Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management.” It now states “Manage livestock grazing to meet, or make significant progress 

toward meeting, Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management.” 

LG-MA-22 was changed from “Management actions for range infrastructure apply to watering 

sites, fences, and corrals within wilderness, consistent with the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness 

and Wild and Scenic Rivers Management Plan.” It was clarified to state “Range infrastructure 

within wilderness must be consistent with the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Management Plan.” 
Record of Decision

ROD-13

o

o

•

•

o

o

•

•

•

•

•

o

o

LG-MA-31 was changed to add clarity. It previously stated “When grazing management changes 

(such as season of use, duration of grazing, etc.) wouldn’t be sufficient to improve riparian 

conditions, modify or remove spring developments associated with wetlands rated as nonfunctioning, functioning-at-risk with a downward trend, or functioning-at-risk to improve wetland 

areas.” It now states “If grazing management changes (such as season of use, duration of 

grazing, etc.) do not improve wetland conditions, modify or remove spring developments 

associated with wetlands rated as non-functioning, functioning-at-risk with a downward trend, or 

functioning-at-risk.” 

In LG-MA-32, the word “other” was removed to add clarity. It previously stated “Ensure salting, 

minerals, supplements, new troughs, new reservoirs, and new holding facilities in other areas are 

located to avoid conflicts with other cultural resources. It now states “Ensure salting, minerals, 

supplements, new troughs, new reservoirs, and new holding facilities in other areas are located to 

avoid conflicts with cultural resources.”

In the Recreation section, a minor clarification was made to management action REC-MA-2. It 

previously stated ‘Where appropriate, implement management methods to protect riparian resources, 

special status species, and wildlife habitat while enhancing recreation opportunities.” It now states 

“Where appropriate, implement management methods to protect riparian resources, special status 

species, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources while enhancing recreation opportunities.” 

In the Transportation and Travel section, minor corrections were made to TR-A-1, TR-MA-1, TR-MA7, and TR-MA-19.

In allocation TR-A-1, the phrase “according to the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Management Plan” was added to ensure consistent management with the 

wilderness plan. It now states “The Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness will be closed to 

motorized and mechanized vehicle use (60,000 acres), according to the Owyhee Canyonlands 

Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Management Plan. The Lower Salmon Falls Creek 

Wilderness Study Area will be closed to motorized vehicle use (2,000 acres).” 

In management action TR-MA-1, “Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nevada Department of 

Wildlife” were added as examples to provide clarity. This management action now states, “Area 

designations apply to all off-highway vehicles, which include any motorized vehicle capable of, or 

designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: 

Any non-amphibious registered motorboat; 

Any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency 

purposes;

Any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the BLM authorized officer or otherwise 

officially approved; 

Vehicles in official use (e.g., Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nevada Department of 

Wildlife); and

Any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies 

(43 CFR 8340.0-5[a]).”

Management action TR-MA-7 was changed from “Route designation will also adhere to the 

following:” to “Route designation will also consider the following, consistent with other resource 

objectives:” to clarify the intent of the management action.

In management action TR-MA-19, the phrase “with motorized vehicles” was added to clarify the 

intent of the management action. Also, “existing roads and motorized routes” were changed to 

“designated routes” to be consistent with other management actions. TR-MA-7 previously stated 

“Dispersed camping will be allowed in any of the existing dispersed campsites adjacent to, or at 

the end of existing roads and motorized routes. Dispersed camping up to 100 feet from center 

line of existing roads and motorized routes will be allowed if site is accessed by the most direct 

route possible. It now states “Dispersed camping with motorized vehicles will be allowed in any of 

the existing dispersed campsites adjacent to, or at the end of designated routes. Dispersed 

camping up to 100 feet from center line of designated routes will be allowed if site is accessed by 

the most direct route possible.” 
Record of Decision

ROD-14

•

o

In the Land Use Authorization section, minor corrections were made to LA-A-3, LA-MA-10, and LAMA-11.

In allocation LA-A-3, the phrase “as practicable” was added to the avoidance area stipulation for 

the Oregon National Historic Trail protective zone and Kelton and Toana Freight Road protective 

corridors to clarify the intent of the stipulation. It now states “New surface or overhead ROWs will

follow existing ROW or disturbance corridors, as practicable. Underground ROWs will be allowed 

with mitigation for disturbance within the protective zone and corridors. Where the alignment of a 

new large-scale linear ROW with multi-jurisdictional impacts is constrained or determined by 

external factors which make avoidance impractical or infeasible, the ROW grant will require 

mitigation commensurate with impacts.” 

Management action LA-MA-10 was changed to remove contradiction and add clarity. Previously, 

the management action stated “Trespass resolution will be limited to removal of facilities and/or 

restoration of the area as determined by the BLM authorized officer. Trespass resolution, as 

determined by the BLM authorized officer, may include:

Removal (depending on the nature of the trespass), 

Restoration,

Authorization of a ROW grant or land use permit, or 

Disposal of the affected land through sale or exchange.” 

The management action now states “Trespass resolution, as determined by the BLM authorized 

officer, may include (in order of resolution priority): 

Removal and restoration (depending on the nature of the trespass), 

Authorization of a ROW grant or land use permit with mitigation commensurate with impacts, 

or 

Disposal of the affected land through sale or exchange (see Appendix G for lands identified 

for disposal).” 

LA-MA-11 was changed to clarify the intent of the management action. Previously, it stated “Land 

use permits for irrigation pivot crossings may be allowed, in accordance with policy and 

regulations. In cases where a pivot crosses public land, the lands are to remain unfarmed and 

unirrigated.” It now states “Existing land use permits for irrigation pivot crossings may be 

renewed, in accordance with policy and regulations, but are to remain unfarmed. New permits for 

irrigation pivot crossings will not be allowed.” 

In the Land Tenure section, minor corrections were made to LT-MA-3, LT-MA-4, and LT-MA-10.

In management action LT-MA-3, Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) were added to 

the list of lands that will, in general, be retained in Federal ownership. The exclusion of SRMAs 

was an oversight. Since the change was to a management action and not an allocation, none of 

the analyses in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS were affected. Also, the term designated critical 

habitat for slickspot peppergrass was changed to proposed critical habitat for slickspot 

peppergrass due to the change in listing status.

In management action LT-MA-4, the phrase “Type 2” was removed from “BLM Type 2 Sensitive 

species habitat” because the BLM eliminated this term for wildlife.

In management action LT-MA-10, “can be made upon consideration” was replaced with “(as 

identified in Appendix G) meet one or more” to add clarity and the word “cultural” was added to 

maintain consistency with other management actions. It now states “Sales of public lands (as 

identified in Appendix G) meet one or more of the following criteria:

The parcel, because of its location or other characteristics, is difficult and uneconomic to 

manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another Federal 

department or agency; 

The parcel was acquired for a specific purpose and is no longer required for that or any other 

Federal purpose; or 

Disposal of the parcel will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, 

expansion of communities and economic development which cannot be achieved prudently 

or feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and 
Record of Decision

ROD-15

•

•

•

o

o

•

o

o

o

•

o

values. These include, but are not limited to, wildlife, grazing, recreation, cultural, and scenic 

values which will be served by maintaining such parcel in Federal ownership.” 

In the Leasable Minerals section, management action LE-MA-13, the length of the Seasonal 

Restriction Stipulation for the Sage-Grouse Management Area (No Surface Use) was changed 

between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS from mid-February through June to 

March through June due to BLM direction in Instructional Memorandum 2010-039. This change 

carries through to the Approved RMP.

In the Salable Minerals section, management action SA-MA-2 added the words “and rehabilitation” to 

correct an oversight. It previously stated “Exploration will be allowed where appropriate under a letter 

of authorization from the BLM authorized officer. Exploration for new sites will be the responsibility of 

the applicant.” It now states “Exploration will be allowed where appropriate under a letter of 

authorization from the BLM authorized officer. Exploration for new sites and rehabilitation will be the 

responsibility of the applicant.” 

In the Locatable Minerals section, allocation LO-A-1 was clarified to ensure the Approved RMP is in 

full compliance with the Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968 (WSRA) and BLM Manual 6400 – Wild 

and Scenic Rivers – Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, Planning, and 

Management. These policies state “subject to valid existing rights, the minerals in Federal lands 

within the bed or banks or situated within 0.25 mile of the bank of any designated wild river are 

withdrawn from appropriation under the mining and mineral leasing laws in Sections 9(a) and 15(2) of 

the WSRA.” BLM Manual 6400 further states “Federal lands within the boundaries of designated river 

areas classified as scenic or recreational are not withdrawn under the WSRA from the mining and 

mineral leasing laws.” 

The phrase “administered as a wild river” was added to this allocation to state “The planning area, 

excluding the following areas withdrawn by statute (60,000 acres), will be available for location of 

mining claims: 

Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness and 

Designated Wild and Scenic River corridors administered as a wild river.” 

In the ACEC section, minor corrections were made to ACEC-O-3 ACEC-MA-18, and ACEC-MA-38. 

Objective ACEC-O-3 to the Salmon Falls Creek ACEC removed the words “including prairie 

falcons and spotted bats” because prairie falcons are no longer a special status species and no 

example of special status wildlife was needed. It previously stated “Protect scenic values, 

redband trout habitat, golden eagle nests, special status wildlife including prairie falcons and 

spotted bats, and native vegetation communities.” It now states “Protect scenic values, redband 

trout habitat, golden eagle nests, special status wildlife, and native vegetation communities.”

Management action ACEC-MA-18 to the Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC was added, which states 

“Minimum impact suppression tactics will be used to suppress wildland fires within the ACEC.” 

Exclusion of this management action was an oversight. It is consistent with management actions 

for the other ACECs and with WFM-MA-17.

Management action ACEC-MA-38 to the Sand Point ACEC was changed to be consistent with 

the Paleontological Resources Protection Act. The term “for scientific research” was removed and 

“or by written approval by a BLM authorized officer” was added. It previously stated “The ACEC 

will be closed to fossil collecting except under permit for scientific research.” It now states “The 

ACEC will be closed to fossil collecting except under permit or by written approval by a BLM 

authorized officer.” 

In the Maps section, minor corrections were made to Map 8 (Slickspot Peppergrass Habitat) and Map 

28 (Leasable Mineral Allocations).

Map 8 was updated to display current occupied habitat, as well as the areas with high, medium, 

and low potential for occurrence. This map was created for the Jarbidge RMP Biological 

Assessment.
Record of Decision

ROD-16

•

•

•

•

o

o

o

o

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

o Map 28 was updated to better display the areas “open with controlled use restrictions” and “open 

with seasonal and controlled use restrictions”.

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

The decision about the Approved RMP is based on consideration and evaluation of the following:

How well the purpose and need is met;

How well the planning issues are addressed; and

How it relates to associated environmental consequences.

The analyses in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS provide the basis for determining the following: how well the 

purpose and need is met; how well the planning issues are addressed; and for considering the

environmental consequences of implementing the plan. The decision to select Alternative VI (Proposed 

Plan) as the Approved RMP is based on the conclusion that management direction in the Proposed Plan

best meets the identified purpose and need and addresses the planning issues, as summarized below. 

The decision is also based on the conclusion that the Proposed Plan has relatively few adverse 

environmental impacts and relatively favorable outcomes for various resources and programs, compared 

to the other alternatives.

Purpose and Need

As stated in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the purpose of this RMP is to provide a comprehensive 

framework for the BLM’s management of public lands within the planning area and its allocation of 

resources pursuant to the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate of FLPMA. Specifically, the purpose 

of the Jarbidge RMP is to provide overall management and long-term direction for lands and resources 

administered by the Twin Falls District, Jarbidge Field Office that will:

Maintain consistency with FLPMA, which includes:

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

public lands;

Preserving, where appropriate, lands in their natural condition;

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

Providing for outdoor recreation, human occupancy, and use;

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

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

Resolve multiple-use conflicts or issues between resource values and resource uses;

Maintain or improve ecosystem functions;

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

Preserve important cultural, historical, and physical resources;

Provide opportunities for sustainable uses of public lands; and 

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

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

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

there was a need for an updated plan (BLM, 2001). The following list of specific factors illustrates the 

need for preparation of an updated RMP:

Changes in ecological, social, and economic conditions;

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

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

and
Record of Decision

ROD-17

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

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

All other aspects of the Approved Plan are identical to those set forth in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

Management decisions and guidance for public lands within the planning area and under the jurisdiction 

of the BLM’s Jarbidge Field Office are presented in the Approved Plan and summarized above in the 

Decision section. 

Meeting the Purpose and Need, Addressing the Planning Issues, 

and Analyzing the Environmental Consequences

The analysis and conclusions in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS support the conclusions that Alternative VI 

(Proposed Plan) meets the purpose and need and best addresses the planning issues. The BLM believes 

that the Approved RMP provides management direction that balances resource uses and protections. 

This balance is expressed in how the Approved RMP addresses the five planning issue topics, which are 

detailed below.

Issue Topic 1: Vegetation (Upland and Riparian) 

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

What types of fuels treatments will be implemented and where will they be focused? The RMP 

establishes goals for fuel treatments to “reduce fire hazard within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)” and 

to manage vegetation communities outside the WUI to maintain or restore their fire regimes and mosaic 

of successional classes to within their historic range. Management Actions FE-MA-7 through FE-MA-12 

define the types of fuels treatments allowed. 

What role will temporary facilities play in fire rehabilitation? During burned area rehabilitation, temporary 

fences will be considered to protect burned plant communities, bearing in mind resource concerns, the 

size of the pasture, the amount burned, the amount of pasture unaffected by rehabilitation, location of 

water, grazing management efficiency, and expense. Temporary fences may become permanent if they 

enhance the management of the burned area; these will be considered on a case-by-case basis through 

site-specific analysis.

Which areas will have the highest priority for fire suppression? Critical suppression areas within the 

planning area will be WUI, ACECs, Saylor Creek Herd Management Area, occupied habitat and 

designated critical habitat for slickspot peppergrass, designated critical habitat for bull trout, and key 

sage-grouse habitat.

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

What are the desired outcomes for upland vegetation and what tools will be used to achieve them?

Upland vegetation communities will be managed to promote soil stability, water infiltration, nutrient 

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

provide for multiple use. Upland vegetation communities will be managed to restore the ability of the 

ecosystem to recover following a disturbance and reduce fragmentation of habitat for sage-grouse and 

other native species. Objectives UV-O-1 through UV-O-4 describe the desired outcomes for upland 

vegetation. The tools used to achieve the desired outcomes are chemical, mechanical, and biological 

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

What are the desired outcomes for riparian vegetation and what tools will be used to achieve them?

Riparian areas will be managed to maintain or improve naturally functioning vegetation communities that 

include natural timing and variability of surface and groundwater in riparian areas and wetlands, and 

diversity and productivity of native and desired non-native plant communities. The tools used to achieve 

the desired outcomes are modification, realignment, and closure of roads and trails; culvert replacements;

active herding; exclosure fencing; riparian pastures; closing pastures; modification or removal of water 

developments; planting of riparian areas; reintroduction of beaver; erosion control measures; instream 
Record of Decision

ROD-18

fish habitat improvements; and modification or elimination of land uses that prevent attainment of the 

goals and objectives for riparian areas and wetlands.

What strategies will be used to address noxious weeds and invasive plants? The RMP established the 

goal of managing public lands to prevent, eliminate, or control noxious weeds and invasive plants.

Strategies used include incorporating BMPs into authorizations and uses; use of certified weed-free 

forage, seed, and straw for management activities, authorizations, and uses; prioritizing areas of 

treatment; and developing and implementing activities to prevent the introduction and spread of noxious 

weeds and invasive plants on public lands such as wash stations, equipment decontamination, and public 

outreach. The tools for treating noxious weeds and invasive plants are chemical, mechanical, and 

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

What types of restoration treatments will be implemented and which areas have a high priority for 

restoration? The tools for restoring or treating upland vegetation communities are chemical, mechanical, 

and biological treatments; seeding and planting; targeted grazing; and prescribed fire. The focus for 

restoration treatments include habitat for sage-grouse, slickspot peppergrass, other special status 

species, mule deer, and pronghorn.

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

numerous restrictions to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife. Some of those include locating water 

drafting sites in upland areas; modifying existing and constructing new fences to comply with BLM 

standards for wildlife; scheduling construction, maintenance, and energy-related activities to avoid or 

minimize disturbance to priority species and their habitat during their important seasonal periods; avoiding 

special status species habitat for leasable and salable mineral development activities; locating new 

troughs, reservoirs, permanent fences, and corrals at least one mile from bighorn sheep habitat; 

maintaining a nine-mile separation between domestic sheep/goats and bighorn sheep; locating incident 

bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, helispots, and other centers for incident activities outside of 

RCAs. Locating new tall structures (e.g., overhead power and phone lines, meteorological towers, 

communication towers) more than four miles from occupied and unknown-status sage-grouse leks; and 

not permitting commercial wind and solar energy developments inside the sage-grouse management 

area or within utility ROW corridors.

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

and their habitats? Management actions SS-MA-12 through SS-MA-16 require certain uses (leasable and 

salable mineral development activities; new communication sites; ROW construction and maintenance) to 

avoid special status species habitat. Also, construction, maintenance, modification, or removal of range 

infrastructure and other facilities will maintain or enhance special status species and their habitat. There 

are further management actions in the Water Resources, Riparian Areas and Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife,

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants, Wildland Fire Ecology and Management, Recreation, Land Use 

Allocations, Land Tenure, and ACEC sections that protect special status species and their habitats. 

Issue Subtopic 1c: Livestock Forage

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

establishes forage allocation on the 1,411,000 acres available for livestock grazing in LG-A-2, based on 

vegetation production. The majority of vegetation production will be allocated to watershed and wildlife. 

Over the entire planning area, wild horses will be allocated less than 1% native perennial grass and less 

than 1% non-native perennial grass (2,400 AUMs). Livestock will be allocated 0% to 40% of native 

perennial grass, 30% to 45% non-native perennial grass, 40% to 50% of annual grass, and 11% to 14% 

of shrubs and forbs of vegetation production.

How will non-native perennial communities be managed? The Non-Native Perennial grass community 

includes crested wheatgrass and intermediate wheatgrass, where 55% to 70% will be allocated to 

watershed and wildlife, less than 1% to wild horses, and 30% to 45% to livestock grazing. For example, 

the non-native perennial grass allocation could be 60% to watershed and wildlife, 0.5% to wild horses, 

and 39.5% to livestock. 
Record of Decision

ROD-19

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

A Livestock Grazing goal of the RMP is to “allocate a stable level of available forage for livestock grazing 

through proper grazing and adaptive management to support maintenance and restoration of resilient 

ecosystem structure and function.” The toolbox to treat upland vegetation communities includes chemical, 

mechanical, and biological treatments; seeding and planting; targeted grazing, and prescribed fire.

Issue Topic 2: Livestock Grazing 

What areas are available for livestock grazing? The majority of the planning area will be available for 

livestock grazing, except for unallocated portions of the canyons associated with the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers and Salmon Falls Creek (below the dam), reference areas, Salmon Falls Creek ACEC, 

wildlife tracts, and areas not contained within grazing allotments.

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

for Livestock Management? A goal of livestock grazing is to “Manage livestock grazing to meet, or make 

significant progress toward meeting, Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management” (LG-G-1). This will be achieved through adaptive management and proper grazing 

management.

What constraints will be placed on livestock grazing? Constraints on livestock grazing include 

implementation of drought guidelines during periods of drought; modification, discontinuation, or 

relocation of grazing management activities, facilities, or infrastructure if they are not maintaining aquatic 

and riparian conditions; placement of salt, minerals, supplements, new troughs, new reservoirs, and new 

holding facilities more than 300 feet from canyon rims and playas; avoiding placement of new water 

developments in sagebrush steppe habitat unless they will contribute to meeting resource objectives;

trailing must be supervised by the permittee to ensure active movement of livestock; and BLM guidelines 

for livestock grazing management in sage-grouse habitat must be followed.

What range infrastructure will be allowed and how will range infrastructure be managed to improve 

livestock management and benefit resources? The goal for livestock infrastructure management is to 

“maintain, improve, build, realign, remove range infrastructure at levels appropriate to the amount of 

livestock use to provide for efficient management of livestock grazing allotments and support fire 

suppression and resource objectives.” The RMP does not establish what range infrastructure will be 

allowed. Management actions LG-MA-22 through LG-MA-35 define how range infrastructure will be 

managed.

Issue Topic 3: Recreation 

Where will motorized recreation be allowed? The Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness will be closed to 

motorized and mechanized vehicle use. The Lower Salmon Falls Creek Wilderness Study Area will be 

closed to motorized vehicle use. Salmon Falls Creek ACEC north and south of Lilly Grade crossing will be 

closed to motorized vehicle use. Designated areas of the Deadman and Yahoo SRMAs will be open to 

cross-country motorized vehicle use. The Rosevear ERMA will provide a series of designated motorized 

routes that link the Deadman and Yahoo SRMAs. In the remainder of the planning area, travel will be 

limited to designated routes.

What constraints will be placed on recreational activities? Constraints on recreational activities include 

management methods to protect riparian resources, special status species, wildlife habitat, and cultural 

resources while enhancing recreation opportunities. These include limiting visitor numbers, adopting 

camping and travel controls, implementing fees, and imposing scheduling restrictions to minimize impacts 

to fish and wildlife during important seasonal periods; dispersed camping with motorized vehicles up to 

100 feet from center line of designated routes will be allowed if site is accessed by the most direct route 

possible; dispersed camping may be closed or limited seasonally or as impacts or environmental 

conditions warrant; commercial special recreation permits (SRPs) that are not compatible with 

management of the Herd Management Area will not be allowed; and game retrieval using motorized 

vehicles will not be allowed off designated routes.
Record of Decision

ROD-20

•

How will SRPs be managed? The RMP establishes multiple management actions for SRPs. These 

include authorizing SRPs for commercial use or competitive events; considering SRPs within ACECs with 

mitigation for impacts to relevant and important values; issuing and managing SRPs for a wide variety of 

uses to enhance outdoor recreational opportunities, managing user-group interaction, and limiting the 

impacts of such uses upon natural and cultural resources, with emphasis on realizing positive economic 

and community benefits through SRP management; and not allowing commercial SRPs that are not 

compatible with management of the HMA.

Where will SRMAs be designated? The RMP designates six SRMAs: Yahoo SRMA, Deadman SRMA, 

Jarbidge Forks SRMA, Balanced Rock SRMA, Little Pilgrim SRMA, and Salmon Falls Reservoir SRMA. It 

also designates four ERMAs: Jarbidge Foothills ERMA, Canyonlands ERMA, Rosevear ERMA, and Luds 

Point ERMA (see Map 18).

Issue Topic 4: Energy Development 

How much energy development will be allowed? The Land Use Authorizations objective provides for the 

development of renewable energy resources with consideration for resource objectives. 

Where will energy development be allowed? Energy development will be allowed in the planning area, 

except in the following ROW exclusion areas: the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness, Lower Salmon 

Falls Creek WSA, and Sand Point ACEC. In the following avoidance areas, ROWs will be allowed in 

accordance with stipulations found in LA-A-3: areas within US Air Force Military Operating Areas; the 

Oregon NHT protective zone; the Kelton and Toana Freight Road protective corridors; eligible, suitable, 

and designated Wild and Scenic River corridors; the Upper Bruneau Canyon and Salmon Falls Creek 

ACECs; and the sage-grouse management area.

What constraints will be placed upon energy development? Constraints on energy development include 

scheduling energy-related activities (e.g., exploration, development, and maintenance) to avoid or 

minimize disturbance to special status species and their habitat during important seasonal periods; not 

permitting commercial wind and solar energy developments inside the sage-grouse management area or 

within utility ROW corridors; and avoiding special status species habitat when conducting renewable 

energy site testing, monitoring, and development. 

Issue Topic 5: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Which existing and nominated ACECs will be designated? The RMP will designate four ACECs: Upper 

Bruneau Canyon ACEC, Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC, Salmon Falls Creek ACEC, and Sand Point 

ACEC (see Map 31).

Rationale for Wild Horse Decisions 

The Range of Alternatives considered and analyzed in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS include managing 

the Saylor Creek Wild Horse herd as a reproducing herd, managing it as a non-reproducing herd, and 

managing the Saylor Creek Wild Horse Herd Area as an unpopulated herd area for a population of zero 

wild horses. BLM selected to manage the Saylor Creek Wild Horse herd as a non-reproducing herd due 

to no natural water on public land and no unique herd characteristics. 

BLM Handbook H-4700-1 provides examples of criteria that could be used to select HMAs for 

management of non-reproducing herds, which include “no special or unique herd characteristics, low 

ecologic condition, limited public land water, and reliance on private water” (BLM Handbook H-4700-1, p. 

8). 

These criteria apply to the Saylor Creek HMA, as detailed below:

The herd does not possess special or unique characteristics: “A DNA test of the Saylor Creek wild 

horse herd was performed following the 2010 emergency gather. The test found the genetic makeup

is average for feral wild horse herds with no trace back to Spanish decent. Managing the Saylor 
Record of Decision

ROD-21

•

•

Creek wild horses as a non-reproducing herd would result in a negligible loss of genetic diversity” 

(Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS, p. 4-550). 

There is limited public land water in the Saylor Creek HMA and the Saylor Creek herd relies solely on 

pipeline systems installed to facilitate livestock management and support the horse herd: “Constant 

human presence associated with the development of private agricultural lands and some conversion 

of public lands to private land beginning in the 1960s slowly eliminated access to natural water at the 

Snake River, resulting in the herd’s total dependence on developed livestock water systems” 

(Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS, p. 3-76).

 Managing a non-reproducing herd would allow the BLM to maintain “dispersal of bands of wild horses 

throughout allotments in the HMA [which] would help prevent the bands from reforming into large 

herds and would decrease localized effects of wild horse grazing relative to alternatives managing for 

reproducing herds” (Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS, p. 4-550).

Rationale for Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions 

As afforded by BLM Manual 6320, the Approved RMP will manage lands inventoried as containing 

wilderness characteristics (104,000 acres) to emphasize other multiple uses while applying management 

restrictions to reduce impacts to wilderness characteristics. In reaching this decision, and in accordance 

with BLM Manual 6320, BLM considered the Congressional action set forth in the Omnibus Public Land 

Management Act of 2009, when it designated approximately 60,000 acres as Wilderness and released 

about 32,000 acres of Wilderness Study Areas, within the Jarbidge Field Office. Of those released acres, 

25,000 acres were inventoried as meeting the criteria for lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The BLM determined that the wilderness characteristics of these areas are adequately protected through 

management prescriptions including Lands Tenure retention areas, right-of-way avoidance areas, and 

areas where motorized travel is limited to designated routes. Further, 100,000 acres of lands with 

wilderness characteristics are within the sage-grouse management area and will be precluded from wind 

and solar energy development (Approved RMP allocation LA-A-5). Some of the areas have additional 

overlapping protections under one or more of the following: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(17,000 acres), Wild and Scenic River corridors (6,000 acres), and Visual Resource Management 

Classes I and II (33,000 acres). 

Lands inventoried as containing wilderness characteristics will be evaluated through subsequent decision 

making, including appropriate NEPA analysis.

Rationale for Livestock Grazing Decisions 

Bruneau River Canyons As described in the Notice of Modifications and Clarifications section, allocation LG-A-1 was modified to 

state that unallocated portions of the canyons associated with the Bruneau River and Jarbidge Rivers, 

and the Salmon Falls Creek will be not be available for livestock grazing. The Bruneau River canyon is

the only one of these canyons that has a livestock grazing allotment in it, the Bruneau Canyon Allotment.

This allotment is administered by the Bruneau Field Office, Boise District BLM. The Bruneau Field Office 

will continue to administer livestock grazing in the Bruneau Canyon Allotment under a Memorandum of 

Understanding. 

CONSISTENCY AND CONSULTATION REVIEW

Consistency of the Approved RMP with other Federal, State, and local plans and policies was also 

considered as a factor in selection of the Approved RMP. The Approved RMP is consistent with plans and 

policies of the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management, other federal and state 

agencies, and local governments to the extent that the guidance and local plans are also consistent with 

the purposes, policies, and programs of federal law and regulation applicable to public lands. 
Record of Decision

ROD-22

Consistency with The National Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy

The Idaho/SW Montana RMP Amendment for Managing Greater Sage-Grouse (Idaho/SW Montana 

RMPA) EIS and the Nevada/NE California RMP Amendment for Managing Greater Sage-Grouse

(Nevada/SE California RMPA) EIS are components of the National Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy and 

RMP Amendment Process. The ROD for the Idaho/SW Montana RMPA will amend up to 29 BLM and 

Forest Service land use plans and the ROD for the Nevada/SE California RMPA will amend up to 21 BLM 

and Forest Service land use plans. 

The Clarification Letter of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS stated “The BLM expects that the Jarbidge RMP 

revision ROD will post-date the sage-grouse RMPA RODs, in order to provide consistent management 

direction throughout the life of the Jarbidge RMP revision.” Due to delays in completing the sage-grouse 

RMPA RODs, the BLM has moved forward in completing the Jarbidge ROD/Approved RMP; therefore the 

Jarbidge Approved RMP will be amended by the RODs for the Idaho/SW Montana RMPA EIS and the 

Nevada/SE California RMPA EIS. 

While the Approved RMP contains some conservation management measures for greater sage-grouse 

(GRSG) habitat, final decisions on how to manage habitat within the Jarbidge Field Office will be made in 

the RODs for the Idaho/SW Montana RMPA EIS and the Nevada/SE California RMPA EIS. These EIS’ 

fully analyzed applicable GRSG conservation measures, consistent with BLM Instruction Memorandum 

No. 2012-044. The BLM expects to make a comprehensive set of decisions for managing GRSG on lands 

administered by the Jarbidge Field Office in the RODs for the Idaho/SW Montana RMPA EIS and the 

Nevada/SE California RMPA EIS. 

As noted above, the Approved RMP provides resource management actions for maintaining, protecting, 

improving, and restoring GRSG habitat. In addition, until the GRSG Amendment RODs are signed, 

management of activities in GRSG habitat will continue to protect GRSG habitat under the interim 

management policy, Instruction Memorandum (IM) (WO-IM-2012-043). This IM provides guidance on the

protection of un-fragmented habitats, minimization of habitat loss and fragmentation, and management of 

habitats in order to maintain, enhance or restore conditions that meet GRSG life history needs. 

Specifically, this policy provides interim conservation policies and procedures to be applied to ongoing 

and proposed authorizations and activities that affect the GRSG and its habitat. 

Governor’s Office Consistency Review

The BLM submitted the Proposed RMP/Final EIS to both the Idaho Governor's Office and the Nevada 

Governor’s Office on August 6, 2014, prior to the Notice of Availability. BLM State Director sent a letter to 

each Governor on August 27, 2014 informing them of the initiation of the 60-day Governor's Consistency 

Review (in accordance with planning regulations at 43 CFR Part 1610.3- 2(e)). Neither Governor’s Office 

responded within or after the review period. 

In early January 2015, BLM contacted both Governors’ offices and requested a consistency review of the 

Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS and response by January 30, 2015. The Nevada Governor’s Office did 

not respond. The Idaho Governor’s Office responded by January 30 and the BLM provided the Governor 

with additional time to complete their consistency review by March 31, 2015.

On March 30, 2015, Idaho Governor Otter submitted a letter which identified inconsistencies between 

Alternative VI (Proposed RMP) and laws, plans, policies and programs of the State. The majority of 

inconsistencies were between sage-grouse direction and conservation actions in the Proposed RMP and 

the Federal Alternative of Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter for Greater Sage-grouse Management in Idaho 

(Governor’s Alternative), and the Idaho Department of Lands draft Greater Sage-grouse Conservation 

Plan for State Endowment Lands (State Plan). 

Both the Governor’s Alternative and the State Plan have a three-tiered approach within the sage-grouse 

management area: “Core”, “Important”, and “General” Habitat Zones, with the Core having the most 

restrictions and the General having the most flexibility. The Jarbidge Proposed RMP does not include a 

three-tiered approach, but rather employs a sage-grouse management area from the Jarbidge Local 

Sage-grouse Working Group’s Conservation Plan, where the majority of key sage-grouse habitat in the 
Record of Decision

ROD-23

planning areas is located. While the Jarbidge Proposed RMP contains conservation measures to protect, 

preserve, and restore sage-grouse habitat, as discussed above, the BLM expects the Jarbidge RMP to be 

amended by the Idaho/SW Montana RMPA ROD and the Nevada/SE California RMPA ROD, Both plans 

include a three-tiered management structure for sage-grouse. 

The remaining issues raised by the State of Idaho were responded to by letter from the Idaho BLM State 

Director. The Governor’s Office did not appeal the State Director’s decision to the BLM Director.

Consistency with Counties

Elko County, Elmore County, and Twin Falls County did not identify any inconsistencies between the 

Draft RMP/EIS or the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and county planning documents. 

Owyhee County Commissioners protested the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The protest asserted that the 

County expected BLM to identify specific inconsistencies with existing county plans. The Owyhee County 

Commissioners also submitted a letter, dated October 20, 2014, to the Idaho Governor’s Office to be 

included in the Governor’s Consistency Review. This letter, received by the BLM on March 31, 2015, 

identified what the County perceived to be specific inconsistencies between Alternative VI (Proposed 

RMP) in the Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS and the Owyhee County Natural Resource Plan of 2009 

(OCNRP). These inconsistencies were responded to in the Governor’s Consistency Review response 

letter from the Idaho BLM State Director. 

BLM met with the Owyhee County Commissioners on May 11, 2015 and June 22, 2015 to further discuss 

remaining county concerns regarding the Proposed RMP vis-a-vis county planning documents. All 

remaining inconsistencies that cannot be resolved pertain to matters of BLM policy. That is, it is the 

County’s position that BLM policies that inform BLM’s management are not binding on the BLM and, 

therefore, the BLM should amend the RMP to be consistent with the County’s plans. It is the BLM’s 

position that the BLM must abide by written policies issued by the agency and Department of Interior. 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Consultation In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and the State Protocol Agreement between Idaho State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the BLM (2014), the BLM completed the consultation process by 

inviting both the Idaho SHPO and Nevada SHPO to participate in scoping for the purpose of identifying 

issues, inviting the SHPOs to comment on any historic properties use allocations, sending all draft and 

final land use plans to the SHPOs for review and comment, and responding to the SHPO’s comments on 

the draft land use (Proposed RMP/Final EIS, Appendix P, p. A-505). The BLM will continue to consult with 

the both Idaho SHPO and Nevada SHPO and comply with the NHPA as it implements the Jarbidge ROD.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation

In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) met 

between January 2006 and June 2015 to discuss potential impacts to listed species from activities 

potentially authorized during implementation of the Jarbidge RMP. The BLM requested formal Section 7 

consultation and conference on May 28, 2015. The FWS submitted a programmatic Biological Opinion on 

July 28, 2015 concurring with BLM’s effects determinations. 

Coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The EPA (Region 10) reviewed the Draft RMP/EIS and submitted comments in accordance with their 

responsibilities under NEPA and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and provided a rating of EC-1 where

• EC = Environmental Concerns - EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be 

avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the 

preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce these impacts.

• Category 1 = Adequate - EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental 

impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project 

or action. No further analysis of data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the 

addition of clarifying language or information. 
Record of Decision

ROD-24

•

•

The EPA also reviewed the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and recommended: 

The Record of Decision's (ROD) Selected Alternative consider additional protections for geologic 

features, soil resources, wildlife residual cover, lands with wilderness characteristics, and Class II 

Visual Resource Inventory areas.

The ROD include clarifying information including a description, discussion, or map supporting the 

assertion that Alternative VI's ACEC locations focus on priority relevant and important values.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm were built into the Approved RMP where practicable. 

Many of the standard management provisions will minimize impacts when applied to activities proposed 

in the planning area. The Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management (BLM, 1997) will be used as the base standards to assess the health of BLM lands in the 

planning area. Best management practices, design features, and operating procedures will be used 

(when applicable) for a number of uses including livestock grazing, land use authorizations, and other 

surface disturbing activities (see Appendix A). Additional mitigation may also be developed during sitespecific activity and project level NEPA analysis.

PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Monitoring is the repeated measurement of activities and conditions over time. Evaluation is a process in 

which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to see if management goals and objectives are being 

met and if management direction is sound. Monitoring data gathered over time is examined and used to

draw conclusions on whether management actions are meeting stated objectives, and if not, why. 

Conclusions are then used to make recommendations on whether to continue current management or 

what changes need to be made in management practices to meet objectives. 

The two types of monitoring that are tied to the planning process include implementation and 

effectiveness monitoring. Land use plan monitoring is the process of (1) tracking the implementation of 

land use planning decisions and (2) collecting and assessing data/information necessary to evaluate the 

effectiveness of land use planning decisions. The two types of monitoring are described below. 

Implementation Monitoring: Implementation monitoring is the most basic type of monitoring and simply 

determines whether planned activities have been implemented in the manner prescribed by the plan. 

Some agencies call this compliance monitoring. This monitoring documents BLM’s progress toward full 

implementation of the land use plan decision. There are no specific thresholds or indicators required for 

this type of monitoring. 

Effectiveness Monitoring: Effectiveness monitoring is aimed at determining if the implementation of 

activities has achieved the desired goals and objectives. Effectiveness monitoring asks the question: Was 

the specified activity successful in achieving the objective? This requires knowledge of the objectives 

established in the RMP as well as indicators that can be measured. Indicators are established by 

technical specialists in order to address specific questions, and thus avoid collection of unnecessary data. 

Success is measured against the benchmark of achieving desired future conditions established by the 

plan. 

Regulations at 43 CFR 1610.4-9 require that the proposed plan establish intervals and standards, as 

appropriate, for monitoring and evaluation of the plan, based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions 

involved. Progress in meeting the plan objectives and adherence to the management framework 

established by the plan is reviewed periodically. CEQ regulations implementing NEPA state that agencies 

may provide for monitoring to assure that their decisions are carried out and should do so in important 

cases (40 CFR 1505.2(c)). To meet these requirements, the BLM will review the plan on a regular 

schedule in order to provide consistent tracking of accomplishments and provide information that can be 

used to develop annual budget requests to continue implementation. 
Record of Decision

ROD-25

Land use plan evaluations will be used by BLM to determine if the decisions in the RMP, supported by the 

accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid. Evaluation of the RMP will generally be conducted every five 

years per BLM policy, unless unexpected actions, new information, or significant changes in other plans, 

legislation, or litigation triggers an evaluation. Land use plan evaluations determine if decisions are being 

implemented, whether mitigation measures are satisfactory, whether there are significant changes in the 

related plans of other entities, whether there is new data of significance to the plan, and if decisions 

should be changed through amendment or revision. Evaluations will follow the protocols established by 

the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 in effect at the time the evaluation is initiated. Specific 

monitoring and evaluation needs are identified by resource/uses throughout the Approved RMP (see 

page RMP-69). 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The planning process for this RMP began with the publication of the Notice of Intent to prepare the 

Jarbidge RMP in the Federal Register on January 10, 2006. One of BLM’s primary objectives during 

development of the Jarbidge RMP was to understand the views of various publics by providing 

opportunities for meaningful participation in the RMP planning process. 

Tribal Participation

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

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

the Fort Hall Business Council and is coordinated with the Shoshone-Bannock environmental staff. A brief 

introduction to the Jarbidge RMP was given to the Fort Hall Business Council on April 27, 2006. Meetings 

with the tribal environmental staff occurred on January 11, 2007, June 26, 2008, and October 14, 2010. A 

presentation on the Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS was given to tribal business council on August 22, 2011.

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 

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

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

American Campfire. The Jarbidge RMP was briefly discussed at Wings and Roots meetings between 

December 2005 and September 2006. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribal Staff toured the southern portion of 

the planning area with Jarbidge Field Office staff on August 10, 2006. Monthly consultation with the 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes for the Jarbidge RMP began in October 2006 and is on-going. 

Coordination with Federal, State, and Local Government 

Agencies

A number of federal, state, and local government agencies were invited to participate in the RMP 

planning process as cooperating agencies. The National Park Service-Hagerman Fossil Beds National 

Monument, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Department of Lands, Idaho Department of Parks 

and Recreation, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, the Elko County Board of Commissioners, and 

the Twin Falls County Commissioners accepted the invitation and finalized Memorandums of 

Understanding to formally establish the relationship. Representatives from National Park Service, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Department of Lands, Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, 

and Idaho State Department of Agriculture participated as members of the Jarbidge RMP Interdisciplinary 

Team (ID Team). The Owyhee County Commissioners participated in the Jarbidge RMP through their 

existing coordination agreement with the Twin Falls District. 

Members of the ID Team and the Twin Falls District managers conducted numerous briefings and 

presentations on the Jarbidge RMP to cooperating agencies, as well as other government agencies, 

including Mountain Home Air Force Base; US Fish and Wildlife Service; Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest, Jarbidge Ranger District; Elko District BLM; and Nevada Division of Wildlife. 
Record of Decision

ROD-26

Newsletters and Website

At the beginning of the Jarbidge RMP process, a mailing list was generated of individuals likely to be 

interested in the Jarbidge RMP. Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) members compiled a mailing list for the 

RMP, including individuals and organizations on other BLM mailing lists; Jarbidge Field Office permit and 

lease holders; Tribes; Federal, State, and local government agencies; mailing list requests; and other 

individuals or organizations thought to be interested in the Jarbidge planning effort.

A newsletter was mailed in May 2006 with a reply card individuals could use to remain on the mailing list. 

Additional newsletters were mailed in September 2006, January 2007, and March 2007.

An e-mail address and website for the RMP were created when the Notice of Intent to prepare the 

Jarbidge RMP was published. The website was developed to communicate information about the 

Jarbidge RMP. This website, located at http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/nepa_register/jarbidge-rmprevision.html, contained the informational pages including why this plan is being prepared, the planning 

process, how to get involved and comment, public meetings, news and newsletters, Federal Register 

Notices, planning documents, and photos.

Scoping

A Notice of Intent to prepare the Jarbidge RMP was published in the Federal Register on January 10, 

2006. This notice served as the beginning of BLM’s formal scoping process for the RMP.

Open house scoping meetings were held in Twin Falls, Buhl, Glenns Ferry, and Three Creek, Idaho (ID), 

in May 2006. A total of 56 individuals participated in these meetings. The open house format was used to 

encourage two-way dialogue and discussions about issues to be addressed in the plan, concerns about 

the process, the planning criteria, and the development of the range of alternatives to be analyzed in the 

Draft RMP/EIS. At each open house, at least five members of the ID Team plus at least one manager 

from the Twin Falls District were available to answer questions from the public. Maps and posters were 

displayed around the room to facilitate discussion between the BLM staff and the public. Some attendees 

submitted written comments at the open houses. In addition, following each open house, ID Team 

members documented the issues and concerns they discussed with various publics.

Several methods were used to advertise the open house meetings and the scoping period for the 

Jarbidge RMP. The RMP website provided information regarding the open houses and instructions for 

submitting scoping comments. A one-page mailing was sent to the RMP mailing list on April 28, 2006, 

that informed recipients of the open house schedule and how to submit comments. These same parties 

were sent the Jarbidge RMP Newsletter on May 12, 2006. This newsletter provided more information 

about the planning process, public participation in the RMP, and the open house schedule; it also 

contained a postage-paid reply card that could be returned as a request to remain on the mailing list and 

be used to provide scoping comments. Copies of the newsletter were distributed to attendees at meetings 

and briefings and were also available to the public at the Jarbidge, Shoshone, and Burley Field Offices.

A press release on the open houses and scoping process was sent to contacts from the Twin Falls 

District Media Distribution List the week of May 8, 2006; two newspapers printed stories and one radio 

station aired a story based on the press release. The local CBS affiliate, KMVT, produced a short 

segment on the Jarbidge RMP that aired during the evening newscasts on May 15, 2006. Print ads were 

also placed in six newspapers prior to the open houses.

Public Meetings, Briefings, and Presentations

In addition to the public meetings held for scoping, a Community Economic Profile workshop was held in 

Glenns Ferry, ID, in September 2006 to present and get feedback on the findings of an economic analysis 

of the area by Dr. Richard Gardner; 14 people from a variety of agencies and organizations attended this 

workshop. A Data Fair was held in Twin Falls, ID, in January 2007 to give the public an opportunity to 

review the data used to develop the Jarbidge RMP. More than 75 people representing a wide array of 

Federal, State, and local government agencies, as well as the general public, attended to view the data 

and information used in developing the Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS and talk with resource specialists.
Record of Decision

ROD-27

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

The Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) hosted workshops about the Jarbidge RMP in 

April 2007. Workshops were planned to discuss alternative development, vegetation and livestock 

grazing, transportation, and areas for special designation or management. The workshop on vegetation 

and livestock grazing had 27 attendees, and 17 people attended the workshop on transportation. Due to a 

lack of interest, workshops on alternative development and areas for special designation or management 

were cancelled.

Members of the ID Team and the Twin Falls District managers conducted briefings and presentations on 

the Jarbidge RMP for a variety of groups. Many of these presentations were provided at regularly 

scheduled coordination meetings, and others were given at the group’s request. These presentations and 

meetings included:

Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council (quarterly);

Idaho Congressional Briefing (quarterly);

“71” Livestock Association (bi-annually);

Jarbidge Sage-Grouse Local Working Group (various);

Twin Falls Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee (May 2006);

The Wilderness Society (June 2006);

Idaho ATV Association Inc., Southern Idaho Desert Racing Association, Treasure Valley Trail 

Machine Association (July 2006);

Buhl Kiwanis (July 2006);

Twin Falls Monarch Lions Club (July 2006);

Mid-Snake Resource Conservation and Development Council (July 2006);

Mayors, Administrators, and City Councils Organization (July 2006);

Twin Falls County Fair (August 30 through September 4, 2006);

Twin Falls Rotary Club (February 2007);

Three Creek Good Road District (March 2007); 

Twin Falls Optimist Club (April 2007);

Idaho Conservation League, The Wilderness Society, Idaho Rivers United (June 2007);

Castleford Men’s Club (July 2007);

Magic Valley ATV Riders (February 2008);

Twin Falls Monarch Lions Club (September 2010); and

The Wilderness Society and Idaho Conservation League (February 2011).

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

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

mangers and staff have also been in regular contact with program leads from the Idaho BLM State Office 

as well as Idaho BLM State Leadership.

Draft RMP/EIS

On September 3, 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the BLM published a Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register, which notified the public of the availability of the Draft RMP/EIS and 

solicited written public comments during the 90-calendar-day review period that ended on December 2, 

2010.

The BLM issued a press release on September 3, 2010, which announced the availability of the Draft 

RMP/EIS and that five open houses would be held. On that same day, the Draft RMP/EIS was available 

for downloading from the Idaho BLM Web site at 

http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/planning/jarbidge_resource.html. The BLM distributed paper and CDROM copies of the Draft RMP/EIS to approximately 620 parties, including elected officials, regulatory 
Record of Decision

ROD-28

agencies, and members of the public. The BLM accommodated additional requests for paper or electronic 

copies of the Draft RMP/EIS after the initial distribution.

In September and October 2010, five open houses were held in Glenns Ferry, ID, Twin Falls, ID, Three 

Creek, ID, Boise, ID, and Elko, NV during the 90-day public review period. Each open house featured 

displays, maps, handouts, and interdisciplinary team resource specialists who provided information and 

answered questions. A total of 91 people attended the open houses.

On October 22, 2010, the BLM issued a press release announcing that the public comment period on the 

Draft RMP/EIS would be extended an additional 60 days. On December 1, 2010, the US Environmental 

Protection Agency and the BLM published a Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period in the Federal 

Register, which notified the public that the comment period for the Draft RMP/EIS was extended until 

January 31, 2011.

The BLM received more than 28,000 letters, faxes, and emails from individuals, organizations, industry 

associations, and state and local agencies. Most of the letters (27,715 of them) were form letters. The 

Jarbidge RMP Interdisciplinary team reviewed every letter, fax, and email and identified both substantive 

and non-substantive comments during the content analysis process. Every comment was read and 

considered. Some comments were combined with similar comments, while other comments were 

modified slightly for clarity. A total of 1,100 comments were responded to by the BLM in Appendix P of the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS

On August 22, 2014, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a Notice of Availability in the 

Federal Register, which began a 30-day protest period, ending on September 22, 2014, and a 60-day 

governors consistency review, which ended on November 4, 2014 in accordance with planning 

regulations at 43 CFR, Part 1610.3-2(e). The Governor’s Consistency Review was extended through 

January 30, 2015.

On August 22, 2014, the Proposed RMP/Final EIS was available for downloading from the Idaho BLM 

Web site at http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/nepa_register/jarbidge-rmp-revision.html.The BLM issued a 

press release on August 27, 2014 which announced the availability of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The 

BLM distributed paper and CD-ROM copies of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS to approximately 680 parties, 

including elected officials, regulatory agencies, and members of the public. 

BLM will continue to actively seek the views of the public, using techniques such as news releases and 

web-site information to ask for participation and inform the public of new and ongoing project proposals, 

site-specific planning, and opportunities and timeframes for comment. BLM will also continue to 

coordinate, both formally and informally, with the numerous Tribal, Federal, State, and local agencies and 

officials interested and involved in the management of public lands in Elko, Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin 

Falls counties within the planning area. 

AVAILABILITY OF THE PLAN

Copies of the Jarbidge Record of Decision and Approved RMP are available for public inspection at the 

Jarbidge Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls ID 83301, phone 

208-736-2350. Interested persons may also review the Proposed RMP/Final EIS online at 

http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/nepa_register/jarbidge-rmp-revision.html. 
Field Manager Recommendation 

Having considered a full range of reasonable alternatives, associated effects, and public input, I 

/m plementation of the attachOO Jaroid ~ :;ent Plan. 

Field Manager 

Jarbidge Field Office 

District Manager Concurrence 

I concur with the adoption and implementation of the Jarbidge Resource Management Plan. 

Michael C. Courtney 

District Manager 

Twin Falls District Office 

State Director Approval 

Date 

In consideration of the foregoing, I approve the Jarbidge Resource Management Plan. 

~~~ - s.,,~ z, 2015" 

Date 

Idaho State Director 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank